Guest guest Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 praNAms Hare Krishna Kindly read the following article which deals with the term *samAdhi* in greater detail....The author of this article points out subtle (should I say huge !!) difference between PY samAdhi & vEdAnta's Atma jnAna.. http://sped2work.tripod.com/samadhi.html Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > Kindly read the following article which deals with the term *samAdhi* in > greater detail....The author of this article points out subtle (should I > say huge !!) difference between PY samAdhi & vEdAnta's Atma jnAna.. Namaste, Indeed!! The difference is as huge as (or more so) between Comans and Ramana! Ramana has said on Yoga Sutra 3:34, that "saMyama on the heart gives Atma-jnana". Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 praNAms Sunder Hattangadi prabhuji Hare Krishna SH prabhuji: Namaste, Indeed!! The difference is as huge as (or more so) between Comans and Ramana! bhaskar : Perhaps, it would also be appropriate to say that the difference is as huge as between shankara & pAtanjala:-)) SH prabhuji: Ramana has said on Yoga Sutra 3:34, that "saMyama on the heart gives Atma-jnana". bhaskar : AFAIK ramaNa says spiritual heart is on the *right side*...pAtanjala also says like that prabhuji?? (no sarcasm here prabhuji..really I donot know...). Even our tattva vAdi dualists will also say their philosophy is Atma/brahma jnAna..but we, shankara philosophy followers are more particular about *Atmaikatva jnAna/darShana*. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 Namaste That difference is indeed the difference between being a shrotriya and Brahmanishta. But the shruti (Mundaka Upanishad) says that one should seek a Shrotriya Brahmanishta. But we assume that a Brahmanishta alone can help us gain Moksha and a better understanding of the method to gain Moksha. Both the passenger and the pilot take off in the same aeroplane and reach the destination, but the Pilot alone knows the way to the destination. To bring it further, the passenger may stay at the destination for years to know the place very well but the pilot could be totally ignorant of the in spite of landing his plane there countless times. Such is the difference between a shrotriya and a brahmanishta. If you have a shrotriya brahmanishta guru, you are the most fortunate. But if you have to make a choice between a shrotriya and brahmanishta, choose the former as he/she would definitely not confuse you. On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 03:25:43 -0000, Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote: > > > advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > > Kindly read the following article which deals with the term *samAdhi* in > > greater detail....The author of this article points out subtle (should I > > say huge !!) difference between PY samAdhi & vEdAnta's Atma jnAna.. > > Namaste, > > Indeed!! The difference is as huge as (or more so) between > Comans and Ramana! Ramana has said on Yoga Sutra 3:34, that "saMyama > on the heart gives Atma-jnana". > > Regards, > > Sunder > > > 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 > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 advaitin, K Kathirasan <brahmasatyam@g...> wrote: > Namaste > > That difference is indeed the difference between being a shrotriya and > Brahmanishta. But the shruti (Mundaka Upanishad) says that one should > seek a Shrotriya Brahmanishta. But we assume that a Brahmanishta alone > can help us gain Moksha and a better understanding of the method to > gain Moksha. > > Both the passenger and the pilot take off in the same aeroplane and > reach the destination, but the Pilot alone knows the way to the > destination. To bring it further, the passenger may stay at the > destination for years to know the place very well but the pilot could > be totally ignorant of the in spite of landing his plane there > countless times. Such is the difference between a shrotriya and a > brahmanishta. > > If you have a shrotriya brahmanishta guru, you are the most fortunate. > But if you have to make a choice between a shrotriya and brahmanishta, > choose the former as he/she would definitely not confuse you. Namaste, Swami Sivananda and Swami Chidananda both are Brahmanishtha and Shrotriya. A Brahmanishtha DOES NOT and CANNOT confuse anyone who is qualified to learn; whatever is said by a Brahmanishtha is 'shruti' itself. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > > > > Perhaps, it would also be appropriate to say that the difference is as huge > as between shankara & pAtanjala:-)) > > > SH prabhuji: > > Ramana has said on Yoga Sutra 3:34, that "saMyama > on the heart gives Atma-jnana". > > bhaskar : > > AFAIK ramaNa says spiritual heart is on the *right side*...pAtanjala also > says like that prabhuji?? (no sarcasm here prabhuji..really I donot > know...). Even our tattva vAdi dualists will also say their philosophy is > Atma/brahma jnAna..but we, shankara philosophy followers are more > particular about *Atmaikatva jnAna/darShana*. Namaste, 'To each his own taste'! As one sage remarked, 'A crow can feel superior to a Jnani because it can sit on top of a Jnani's statue, and even deposit its droppings there!' Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Namaste Sunderji, << A Brahmanishtha DOES NOT and CANNOT confuse anyone who is qualified to learn; whatever is said by a Brahmanishtha is 'shruti' itself.>> Did Shankara mention this in any of his Bhashya? Kathirasan On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:58:55 -0000, Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote: > > > advaitin, K Kathirasan <brahmasatyam@g...> wrote: > > Namaste > > > > That difference is indeed the difference between being a shrotriya and > > Brahmanishta. But the shruti (Mundaka Upanishad) says that one should > > seek a Shrotriya Brahmanishta. But we assume that a Brahmanishta alone > > can help us gain Moksha and a better understanding of the method to > > gain Moksha. > > > > Both the passenger and the pilot take off in the same aeroplane and > > reach the destination, but the Pilot alone knows the way to the > > destination. To bring it further, the passenger may stay at the > > destination for years to know the place very well but the pilot could > > be totally ignorant of the in spite of landing his plane there > > countless times. Such is the difference between a shrotriya and a > > brahmanishta. > > > > If you have a shrotriya brahmanishta guru, you are the most fortunate. > > But if you have to make a choice between a shrotriya and brahmanishta, > > choose the former as he/she would definitely not confuse you. > > Namaste, > > Swami Sivananda and Swami Chidananda both are Brahmanishtha and > Shrotriya. A Brahmanishtha DOES NOT and CANNOT confuse anyone who is > qualified to learn; whatever is said by a Brahmanishtha is 'shruti' > itself. > > Regards, > > Sunder > > > 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 > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Namaste Kathirasan-ji, > But if you have to make a choice between a shrotriya and brahmanishta, > choose the former as he/she would definitely not confuse you. > What made you come to this profound and enlightened conclusion, Sri Kathirasjan-ji? For such a statement of yours is TOTALLY opposed to the views of the Scriptures and Sri Sankara. Sri Sankara categorically states while commenting on the Gita verse 6.34: The considered view of the Lord is that Knowledge imparted by those who have full enlightenment becomes effective, not any other. Please note the words of Sankara 'iti bhagavato matam' This IS the view of the Lord. And also note Sankara's clear denunciation of just learnedness alone by His words : NOT ANY OTHER. [here is the verse and relevant portion of Sankara's commentary tadviddhi praNipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa . upadekShyanti te GYaanaM GYaaninastattvadarshinaH .. 4\-34.. Although people may be wise, some of them are apt to know Truth just as it is, while others may not be so. Hence the qualification, 'who have realized the Truth'. The considered view of the Lord is that Knowledge imparted by those who have full enlightenment becomes effective, not any other. That being so, the next verse also becomes appropriate: http://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/] regards Sundar Rajan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 (corrected a small error in the Gita reference in my previous posting) Namaste Kathirasan-ji , > But if you have to make a choice between a shrotriya and brahmanishta, choose the former as he/she would definitely not confuse you. > What made you come to this profound and enlightened conclusion, Sri Kathirasjan-ji? :-) >> choose the former as he/she would definitely not confuse you. This is worse than blind leading the blind!. So you would rather follow a blind person who does not even know the path (Srotriya)than a person with perfect eyes, one who has fully traversed the path before and knows all the pitfalls of the path, who is capable of leading you by his hand (Brahmanishta) but does not speak much? Let me stop here.. Your statement/conclusion is TOTALLY CONTRADICTORY to the views of the Scriptures and Sri Sankara. Sri Sankara categorically states while commenting on the Gita verse 4.34: Hence the qualification, 'who have realized the Truth'. The considered view of the Lord is that Knowledge imparted by those who have full enlightenment becomes effective, not any other. Please note the qualification according to Sri Sankara is 'who have realized the Truth' (Brahmanishta). Note also Sankara's clear denunciation of just Srotriya alone: NOT ANY OTHER. Also note the choice of words Sankara employs here 'iti bhagavato matam' This IS the view of the Lord. [here is the verse and relevant portion of Sankara's commentary tadviddhi praNipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa . upadekShyanti te GYaanaM GYaaninastattvadarshinaH .. 4\-34.. Although people may be wise, some of them are apt to know Truth just as it is, while others may not be so. Hence the qualification, 'who have realized the Truth'. The considered view of the Lord is that Knowledge imparted by those who have full enlightenment becomes effective, not any other. http://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/] regards Sundar Rajan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 >A Brahmanishtha DOES NOT and CANNOT confuse anyone who is >qualified to learn; whatever is said by a Brahmanishtha is 'shruti' >itself. Being Brahmanishtha does not by itself make one a competent teacher. A teacher is one who knows the subject *and also* the method to convey it. If a jnani does not know the method of conveying his vision, his knowledge is useful for him only-- not for the other seekers. I would cite Sri J. Krishnamurthy as a case of Brahmanishtha who was not a shrotriya. As you listen to him, you immediately recognize the ring of truth in his words. However, not one of his disciples in his 50+ years of teaching could reach his vision. In his later years, Krishnamurthy, himself accepted his failure in conveying his message. Today, you can find almost as many versions of his teachings as the number of his students. He did not *intentionally* confuse anyone, nonetheless his students got confused. For a shrotriya teacher, the case is different. If he has received this knowledge trough a sampradaya, he is aware of the pitfalls and understands the tricks mind plays on the path. He has a structure to convey which is otherwise anirvachaniya and can spot when the student's understanding is deviating from the truth. This method is not his own invention but has been built and perfected over the centuries. Shruti is much more than what is said by a brahmanishtha. A brahmanishtha may use different examples and paradigms to convey his vision. Not all of it is shruti. More precisely what is received by him through the sampradaya is shruti. It is not only the knowledge but also the method of conveying the knowledge that makes it unique. Regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Namaste Sundarji, Do read Sanjayji's post in this thread. Shankara insists in his commentaries that a Guru should also be a Shrotriya. We have conveniently neglected that aspect thinking that Brahmanishta alone is sufficient. Study the first five sutras of the Brahma Sutra Shankara Bhashya and you would realize that Shastra alone reveals Brahman or Jiva-brahma-aikya. Therefore, the Guru must know how to unfold the Shastra such that it doesn't confuse the seeker. This is where methodology kicks in. The Guru must be well versed in the method of Vedanta also. I am not disagreeing with you Sundarji. All that I am saying is that the qualification of Brahmanishta alone is insufficient. On must also be a Shrotriya because Shastras alone reveal Brahman. On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:44:20 -0000, Sundar Rajan <avsundarrajan wrote: > > > (corrected a small error in the Gita reference in my previous > posting) > > Namaste Kathirasan-ji , > > > But if you have to make a choice between a shrotriya and > brahmanishta, choose the former as he/she would definitely not > confuse you. > > > > What made you come to this profound and enlightened conclusion, Sri > Kathirasjan-ji? :-) > > >> choose the former as he/she would definitely not confuse you. > > This is worse than blind leading the blind!. So you would rather > follow a blind person who does not even know the path (Srotriya)than > a person with perfect eyes, one who has fully traversed the path > before and knows all the pitfalls of the path, who is capable of > leading you by his hand (Brahmanishta) but does not speak much? > > Let me stop here.. > > Your statement/conclusion is TOTALLY CONTRADICTORY to the views of > the Scriptures and Sri Sankara. > > Sri Sankara categorically states while commenting on the Gita verse > 4.34: > > Hence the qualification, 'who have realized the Truth'. The > considered view of the Lord is that Knowledge imparted by those > who have full enlightenment becomes effective, not any other. > > Please note the qualification according to Sri Sankara is 'who have > realized the Truth' (Brahmanishta). Note also Sankara's clear > denunciation of just Srotriya alone: NOT ANY OTHER. > > Also note the choice of words Sankara employs here 'iti bhagavato > matam' This IS the view of the Lord. > > [here is the verse and relevant portion of Sankara's commentary > > tadviddhi praNipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa . > upadekShyanti te GYaanaM GYaaninastattvadarshinaH .. 4\-34.. > > Although people may be wise, some of them are apt to know Truth just > as it is, while others may not be so. Hence the qualification, 'who > have realized the Truth'. The considered view of the Lord is that > Knowledge imparted by those who have full enlightenment becomes > effective, not any other. > http://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/] > > regards > Sundar Rajan > > > 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 > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 _____ K Kathirasan [brahmasatyam] Wednesday, March 23, 2005 12:15 AM advaitin Re: Re: Article on samAdhi If you have a shrotriya brahmanishta guru, you are the most fortunate. But if you have to make a choice between a shrotriya and brahmanishta, choose the former as he/she would definitely not confuse you. *************************** Our Upanishads are crystal clear. Know That by which all else is known. Knowing That, One becomes That. Knowing That there is no confusion. Otherwise one is always caught in the conceptual jungle of diversity and passing judgments left and right on the perceived "other". Self is One without a Second. Love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Namaste Harshaji. Hopefully, an anecdote by none other than Sw. Dayanandaji might help here. Quite some years ago, he was in Kuwait en route Mumbai. He confided to one of his disciples that he planned to get his eye glasses changed in Mumbai. The disciple told Swamiji that there were better facilities and technology available in Kuwait and persuaded him to go to a local optometrist. The optometrist set all his expensive measuring equipment against Swamiji's line of vision and began changing lenses one by one asking Swamiji each time he changed them: "Is this ok?" "Was the previous one better?", "How is this?" "Do you think the vision is more focused with this one?" etc. This set Swamiji wondering. He had believed he was supposed to meet an expert. Now the expert was himself seeking the advice of the one who went to him for help! If we apply the pertinence of this story to Kathirasanji's specification of stOtriya brahmanishta guru (SBG), then the chooser of such guru, I, (the one who needs help) gains importance. What a situation? How can I be ever sure I am face to face with a right SBG? Sankara has many self-proclaimed followers. Who of them are true SBGs? In interpreting the Acharya, they are constantly at the neck of one another not to speak of the hallabaloo their own bands of disciples are making on the streets of Advaita. Some of them insist not to go outside Sankara's prastAnatrayi interpretations. Even here, I need help because the interpretations have unfathomable Sanskrit nuances. I can't afford to approach them alone without the aid of some vision or at least idea gained from a Sankara traditionalist? How am I to know who among them is the right SBG of right specifications? I ask myself. Has Sankara said anywhere that only his prastAnatrayi interpretations are valid? If he has, that advice should be there right in the prastAnatrayi interpretations. If it is outside, it will be unacceptable. I must also assume that Sankara wrote the other works just for fun - to pass time - or such great works like Soundarya Lahari (why even the Dakshinamurthy Hymn from which I draw immense advaitic inspiration) are not his. If this prastAnatrayi insistence is a condition set by one of his followers, then it is not a Sankara dictum. Am I then bound to follow it? Is the one who set the rule an SBG himself? How am I to know? Another expert tells me. Don't worry. Guru is a matter of grace. Just pray to the Lord. You can do with Acharya's bajagOvindam. SBG will manifest. Well, the question again. BajagOvindam is not in the prastAnatrayi. Did Sankara pen it? Is it permitted in pure advaita to chant it? Harshaji, without confounding the confusion any more with several other questions, let me just conclude: Your message is very helpful in this context. PraNAms. Madathil Nair __________________ advaitin, "Harsha" wrote: > _____ > > K Kathirasan [brahmasatyam@g...] > Wednesday, March 23, 2005 12:15 AM > advaitin > Re: Re: Article on samAdhi > > > > > If you have a shrotriya brahmanishta guru, you are the most fortunate. > But if you have to make a choice between a shrotriya and brahmanishta, > choose the former as he/she would definitely not confuse you. > > *************************** > > Our Upanishads are crystal clear. Know That by which all else is known. > Knowing That, One becomes That. Knowing That there is no confusion. > Otherwise one is always caught in the conceptual jungle of diversity and > passing judgments left and right on the perceived "other". Self is One > without a Second. > > > > Love to all > > Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Dear Nairji: Thank you for your message. I was just thinking about how eloquently you had expressed yourself on the matter before. We are all naturally inclined towards certain positions. I am not a sanskrit scholar but can appreciate to some extent the nuances in opposing arguments presented by the learned members here. All of these are creations of the mind but perhaps to an extent can help us see that the mind itself is what needs to be surrendered to the Lord. When this surrender spontaneously occurs then the Silence that is our own nature as Sat-Chit-Ananda is seen by It Self to delight in its own nature. Dakshinamurthy taught in silence. Sri Ramana said that the highest teaching is given in silence. Mind is opposed to this silence and finds many ways to create noise. No problem, as all things must act according to their nature. One man's noise is another man's music after all. So what can we say? Here is what Ribhu Gita states (Chapter 15, verse 7) - Translation by Professor N.R. Krishnamurthi Aiyer. "The total discarding of the mind is alone victory, achievement, bliss, yoga, wisdom, and liberation. The sacrifice of the mind is, in fact, the totality of all sacred sacrifices." Love to all Harsha Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote: > > If we apply the pertinence of this story to Kathirasanji's > specification of stOtriya brahmanishta guru (SBG), then the chooser > of such guru, I, (the one who needs help) gains importance. What a > situation? How can I be ever sure I am face to face with a right > SBG? > > Sankara has many self-proclaimed followers. Who of them are true > SBGs? In interpreting the Acharya, they are constantly at the neck > of one another not to speak of the hallabaloo their own bands of > disciples are making on the streets of Advaita. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 praNAms Hare Krishna I've seen in this thread that some *modern day* *all encompassing* advaita followers murmuring on the insistence of shankara's prasthAna trayi bhAshya....This is just to bring to their notice, even today in traditional circle of advaita saMpradAya, if there is any doubt in determining shankara's mUla siddhAnta on certain aspects, traditionalists hold ONLY prasthAna trayi & its commentaries by bhagavadpAda as authoritative source....For example, in a debate on *mUlAvidyA* or bhAva rUpa avidya, two traditional AchArya's of shankara saMpradAya held ONLY prasthAna trayi commentary as the basic premise for their debate...(almost 90% of this debate based on nyAya prasthAna & with minor quotes from shruti & smruti prasthAna). Another debate on kAraNAvidyA in sushupti & prasankhyAna vAda, even in these cases also advaita Acharaya-s meticulously sticked to prasthAna trayi. You can see this practice in vEdAnta gOShTi, charchAgOSTI on vEdAnta etc. Since other prakaraNa grantha-s, its purports & authorship are still in question in traditional circle, advaita Acharaya-s stick to prasthAna trayi *EVEN TODAY* to determine *shankara siddhAnta*. Because it has been unanimously agreed that these three along with kArikAbhAshya are the genuine works of shankara. Without knowing this fundamental method people are crying at the top of their voice *why only prasthAna trayi*.....this only shows their poor fund of knowledge in traditional approach & its importance. We have better control over the language with good vocabulary, we have some *idea* what would be the shankara's siddhAnta through some translated versions, we dont want to sit at the lotus feet of shrotrIya-brahmaniShTa guru because we dont have enough time!!! ...we want instant understanding of everything through on line cyber net resources & based on that we are in a hurry to make sweeping conclusions like shankara commentary not required, scriptures are not indispensable in advaita etc. etc. by quoting some references from other Acharya's out of context...this is the main trend which I noticed nowadays in this list...We, in the name of *all encompassing* advaita, are ready to slap on the face of traditionalists who spent decades with great degree of shraddha in understanding shankara siddhAta . We are proudly holding wine glass in one hand & translated version of advaita works on the other & giving verdicts on how to approach shankara's advaita & expecting others to oblige us with an open ears!!!! what a miserable condition is this... Kindly pardon me if this mail hurts anyone's sentiments....I know contents of this mail is completely out of the scope of the list policy...but I've to say all these since the *noise* of the writers in this thread is somewhat unbearable...Anyway, henceforth I'd refrain myself reading mails from some specified writers....so that mails like this could be avoided. I onceagain apologies if this mail offends any one's sentiments. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar 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.