On eka-jiva, subjective idealism and solipsism

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sankarraman-ji,

 

Just one last post for the day.....

>From your various posts I get the feeling that you are espousing the

view of eka-jiva-vada (solipsism). Also, your arguments seem to be in-

line with those offered by the subjective idealists. I do not believe

that this list has discussed the eka-jiva-vada of Advaita so far. It is

a view (of Prakasatman I think) that had arisen in the Vivarana scool

of Advaita. If the moderators agree, I would like to suggest that the

eka-jiva-vada of Advaita be included as a monthly discussion topic and

that you may lead the discussion on this topic.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

on 4th of Nov. you had written :

 

//quote//

>From your various posts I get the feeling that you are espousing the

view of eka-jiva-vada (solipsism). Also, your arguments seem to be in-

line with those offered by the subjective idealists. I do not believe

that this list has discussed the eka-jiva-vada of Advaita so far. It is

a view (of Prakasatman I think) that had arisen in the Vivarana scool

of Advaita.

//unquote//

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji I dont think this (eka jIva vAda - theory of single jIva) is the

contribution of vivaraNa school. It may be noted, contextually at various

places, shankara himself does speak about both eka jIva vAda & anEka jIva

vAda (the theory of multiple jIva-s). In the vyAvahAric stand point, we

do believe and behave as if there are multiple jIva-s. In sUtra bhAshya

shankara says (reference later) ..the brahman alone to be taken as jIva

owning to connection with a conditioning adjuncts (upAdhi-s). In this

case, since there are no multiple brahman-s, we can talk of one particular

jIva so long as bondage continues as attaching itself to one upAdhi. But

in the case of bondage continuing to attach itself to another upAdhi then

the talk of another jIva is necessary. Here as you can see shankara

accepts both yEka & anEka jIva vAda-s. If we hold the samashti or

collective antaHkaraNa as the upAdhi of Atman then it is yEka jIva vAda

whereas if we hold the individual antaHkaraNa as they are many then it

leads to nAnAjIva or anEka jIva or multipls jIva vAda. So bhAshyakAra

bhagavadpAda accepts both view points from different view points.

 

Rest of the points can be discussed when the topic comes for month long

discussion.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

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

> prabhuji I dont think this (eka jIva vAda - theory of single

> jIva) is the contribution of vivaraNa school. It may be

> noted, contextually at various places, shankara himself does

> speak about both eka jIva vAda & anEka jIva vAda (the theory

> of multiple jIva-s). In the vyAvahAric stand point, we do

> believe and behave as if there are multiple jIva-s. In sUtra

> bhAshya shankara says (reference later) ..the brahman alone

> to be taken as jIva owning to connection with a conditioning

> adjuncts (upAdhi-s). In this case, since there are no multiple

> brahman-s, we can talk of one particular jIva so long as

> bondage continues as attaching itself to one upAdhi.

 

 

Where does Shankara say that Ishvara is a jiva under bondage? When

Shankara says that Brahman alone is to be taken as the jiva, the

context of the statement is the identity of the jiva and Brahman as

being the One Supreme Self from which the limiting adjuncts are to be

removed. It is an instruction in the context of Tat-vam-asi and other

statements to this purport. It does not mean that the jiva having the

limiting adjuncts of the limited body is to be equated with Ishvara

(either in the form of Hiranyagarbha whose adjunct is the entire

universe, or Ishvara) as the Creator who has no adjunct, any adjunct

seen of Him being only in the eyes of the jiva.

 

If drishti-shristi must be equated to eka-jiva-vada, then Ishvara has

to be a jiva. If Ishvara is not a jiva, then drsihti-srishti can only

be equated to Eka-Ishvara-Vada.

 

The eka-jiva-vada that arose in Advaita wherein creatorship is

assigned to a jiva is indeed an emergence out of the Vivarana school.

If we are to go by what Shankara said, then we should go by his

bhashya on the Brahma Sutras specifically taking the sutras related

to Creation.

 

Even though this world may be said to be an illusion (in a certain

sense), the fire-illusion has the property of heat-illusion and water-

illusion has the property of cold-illusion. Fire may not be spoken of

as cold and water as hot. Likewise, in this creation, jiva may not be

spoken of as the Creator and Ishvara as a jiva under illusion.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

CN prabhuji:

 

Where does Shankara say that Ishvara is a jiva under bondage?

 

bhaskar :

 

I cannot give that right now prabhuji, as I am writing this from

office....Anyway, shankara does not say Ishvara is another jIva...but says

Ishvara's Ishitavya, sarvajnatva, sarvashaktitva etc. are only in

vyAvahArika & avidyA where jIva accepts srushti & Ishvara as its creator.

prabhuji, it is better to check shankara's clarification about apara & para

brahman in sUtra bhAshya.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

When Shankara says that Brahman alone is to be taken as the jiva, the

context of the statement is the identity of the jiva and Brahman as

being the One Supreme Self from which the limiting adjuncts are to be

removed. It is an instruction in the context of Tat-vam-asi and other

statements to this purport.

 

bhaskar :

 

OK prabhuji...but what is the issue here..I am not able to get it..pls. be

specific...for that matter shankara does not accept any sentient

(chaitanya) such as Ishvara / jIva apart from brahman...again kindly refer

sUtra bhAshya.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

It does not mean that the jiva having the

limiting adjuncts of the limited body is to be equated with Ishvara

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, please note that I am not equating Ishvara with jIva...but

I_am_saying from the absolute stand point of advaita Ishvara is conditioned

by name & form set up by avidyA...refer sUtra bhAshya - ArabhaNAdhikaraNa??

not sure..but you can check yourself also.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

(either in the form of Hiranyagarbha whose adjunct is the entire

universe, or Ishvara) as the Creator who has no adjunct, any adjunct

seen of Him being only in the eyes of the jiva.

 

bhaskar :

 

thats true...when the samashti upAdhi / smashti antaHkaraNa upAdhi is taken

the self is called as mahAn Atman or hiraNyagarbhA or prathamaja...if you

see sUtra bhAshy shankara uses two words one is bhOkta and another one is

hiraNyagarbha. bhOkta denotes here individual soul & hiraNyagarbhA is

agryAm or agraja or first born one. This word hiraNyagarbha taken from the

standpoint *samashti antaHkaraNa* which is one...this is yEka jIva vAda in

my opinion...The same antaHkaraNa appears as many due to the upAdhi-s of

the body this is nAnA jIva vAda. So, the yEka & nAnA jIva vAda are from

the standpoint of upAdhi-s which in itself false appearance conjured up by

avidyA. This is coz. as said above the socalled jIvahood itself is a false

appearance. Again refer sUtra bhAshya where shankara explicitly says

parabrahman itself has been conjured up the jIva form quite opposed to this

in nature...just like surface and dirt are fancied to pertain to the sky!!

(talamalAdi parikalpitaM)

 

CN prabhuji:

 

The eka-jiva-vada that arose in Advaita wherein creatorship is

assigned to a jiva is indeed an emergence out of the Vivarana school.

 

bhaskar :

 

you may be right but that is not my contention...pls. see above. for that

matter vivarana gives more than one alternative with regard to cause of the

world...at one place it says individual souls (note plural) which are the

reflection of brahman and which associated with mAya are the cause..at

another place it says brahman reflected in mAya avidyA is the cause of the

world elsewhere it says as you said above, the individual souls themselves

each of them manifest brahman as the world through their private avidyA and

there are as many worlds projected as there are multiple jIvas..etc..Since

you find multiple theories like this, we cannot categorically say vivaraNa

is the promoters of yEka jIva vAda.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

If we are to go by what Shankara said, then we should go by his

bhashya on the Brahma Sutras specifically taking the sutras related

to Creation.

 

bhaskar :

 

I think ArabhaNAdhikarana & janmAdhikaraNa in in vEdAnta sUtra-s are

pertain to creation...& we can also check kArikA bhAshya as well since in

this commentary also shankara deals with theory of creation.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

Even though this world may be said to be an illusion (in a certain

sense), the fire-illusion has the property of heat-illusion and water-

illusion has the property of cold-illusion. Fire may not be spoken of

as cold and water as hot. Likewise, in this creation, jiva may not be

spoken of as the Creator and Ishvara as a jiva under illusion.

 

bhaskar :

 

nothing of that order has been said above...kindly check the status of

Ishwara from the absolute stand point in shankara bhAshya..I think shankara

is quite clear in his stand while explaining the role of apara brahman.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

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

> CN prabhuji:

>

> Where does Shankara say that Ishvara is a jiva under bondage?

>

> Bhaskar Prabhuji:

>

> I cannot give that right now prabhuji, as I am writing this

> from office....Anyway, shankara does not say Ishvara is

> another jIva...but says Ishvara's Ishitavya, sarvajnatva,

> sarvashaktitva etc. are only in vyAvahArika & avidyA where

> jIva accepts srushti & Ishvara as its creator.

 

 

Thank you for your reply Prabhuji. The discussion was about fixing

the locus of drishti-srishti creatorship in the context of creation.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

--- bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> praNAms Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> on 4th of Nov. you had written :

>

> //quote//

> From your various posts I get the feeling that you

> are espousing the

> view of eka-jiva-vada (solipsism). Also, your

> arguments seem to be in-

> line with those offered by the subjective idealists.

> I do not believe

> that this list has discussed the eka-jiva-vada of

> Advaita so far. It is

> a view (of Prakasatman I think) that had arisen in

> the Vivarana scool

> of Advaita.

> //unquote//

>

> bhaskar :

>

> prabhuji I dont think this (eka jIva vAda - theory

> of single jIva) is the

> contribution of vivaraNa school.

Sankarraman would like to add

In fact there seems to be but one jiva,

Hiranyagarbha or Iswara, whatever be the terminology,

who is a real-unreal reflection of Brahman, all the

other jivas being merely a semblance of this primary

being, bondage or liberation pertaining to these

shadowy beings, called chit-jada-granthi by Bhaghavan

Ramana. The transcendental jiva has no botherations

about his existence or non-existence; it is only the

phantoms that have to ask these questions for which

there is no answer. The state of deep sleep in

relative existence seems to be surely a pointer

towards the eka-jiva vada concept alone; but

unfortunately, again the knowledge of the deep sleep

as one of void of phenomena, is had only by the waking

jiva, the jiva in slumber having no vexatious

questions to answer. Even the branding of deep sleep

as one of ignorance is only by the vignanamaya-kosa

individual of the waking state who has no suzerinity

over the deep sleep state.

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

Start your day with - Make it your home page!

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

The context for creatorship is creation. Advaita says that there is

no creation. Now, in the context of creation, how does one get to the

Truth that there is no creation? Advaita says that the ego has to be

dissolved for seeing the Truth because the ego is the persisting form

of avidya. The ego is self-centredness which is not the Self but is

the non-self posing as the Self. Assigning creatorship to this self-

centredness through drishti-srishti-vada is the speech of self-

centredness and hence it is speech that is coloured by avidya.

Assigning creatorship to Brahman, as It is reflected in creation, is

speech that is tending to dissolve the ego or the self-centredness of

avidya. Brahman as It is reflected in creation is Ishvara. Therefore

assigning creatorship to Ishvara is the speech of the dissolving ego

which is a truer speech here than the speech of the asserting ego

assigning to itself the creatorship of the universe through its self-

centred drishti. Speech assigning srishti to the Self's drishti must

come from Ishvara rising from the heart when the ego is dissolving

for then the Self within the jiva is leaving behind the jiva-hood.

The Advaitic truth of the identity of the Self within with Brahman is

not a license for the ego to perpetuate itself.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik

wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> The context for creatorship is creation. Advaita

> says that there is

> no creation. Now, in the context of creation, how

> does one get to the

> Truth that there is no creation? Advaita says that

> the ego has to be

> dissolved for seeing the Truth because the ego is

> the persisting form

> of avidya.

Sankarraman would like to say apropos of the above

message.

It is presumptious to assert that the

dhrishti-shrishti vada is the perpetuation of the ego.

It is a valid sadhana for the psychologically

introverted persons who are not capable of

appreciating the concept of Iswara. If the

respondent's view were correct, then we should have to

reject valid philosophical schools like Buddhism and

Samkhya yoga which did not feel the need for positing

the existence of an Iswara.

Bhaghavan Ramana consistently drove back the

questioners to their subjective source, when questions

relating to Creation, Iswara, etc, were posed. In the

monumental work, 'Guruvachaka Kovai', composed by the

great poet-saint, the foremost disciple of Bhaghavan,

there is clear emphasis given to dhrishti-shristi vada

or the eka-jiva vada. Of course, it may not suit the

temperament of certain individuals. But on that score,

such a valid path may not be branded as the assertion

of the non-self posing as the self, involving the

egoism alleged by our learned friend. We cannot rely

upon Sastras alone; but should take into account the

prdeliction of the existing individuals.

Yours Ever in Bhaghavan

Sankarraman

 

Verses from Guruvachaka-Kovai

9) Jiva One only.

 

534) Let the firm hearted seekers, abiding in the

clear certitude that the jiva is but one, stabilise

strong in the Being. The averment that the jivas are

many is only by way of concession to meet the mediocre

minds not mature.

 

535) Who is born? Who has torn asunder the knot of

birth and death? In the state of sleep of the absence

of the 'I', could we conceive beings as one of being

encased in, or free from the body-bound ego?

 

 

 

 

 

FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.

http://farechase.

[Guest guest]

sRI Ganesan Sankararaman-ji!

 

i LOve addressing you like this for i take the name of three gods all

at the same time - Lord Ganesha , Lord Shankara and Lord Rama! wow!

 

i also like the way you refer to yourself as 'Sankararaman' -

vaishnaivites normally say 'ADIYEN' and realized souls say ' this

atma' - This is one way to subdue the ego ! instead of saying 'I' ...

 

on another note, i am amazed to see you taking the names of all

spiritual leaders from J.krishnamurthy to u.g. Krishnamurthy and From

OSHO to Sri Ramana ALL IN ONE BREATH!

 

anyway, here are shri Ramana's views on the three 'vadas'

 

Sri Ramana adopted three different standpoints when he

spoke about the nature of the physical world. He advocated all of

them at different times but it is clear from his general

comments on the subject that he only considered the first two

theories given below to be either true or useful.

 

*Ajata vada* or the theory of non-causality. This is an

ancient Hindu doctrine which states that the creation of

the world never happened at all. It is a complete denial

of all causality in the physical world. Sri Ramana

endorsed this view by saying that it is the jnani's (Man

who is Self-realised) experience that nothing ever

comes into existence or ceases to be because the

Self alone exists as the sole unchanging reality. It is a

corollary of this theory that time, space, cause and effect,

essential components of all creation theories, exist only in the

minds of ajnanis (ignorant) and that the experience of the Self

reveals their non-existence.

 

This theory is not a denial of the reality of the world, only

of the creative process which brought it into existence. Speaking

from his own experience Sri Ramana said that the jnani is aware that

the world is real, not as an assemblage of interacting matter and

energy, but as an uncaused appearance in the Self. He enlarged on

this by saying that because the real nature or substratum of this

appearance is identical with the beingness of the Self, it

necessarily partakes of its reality. That is to say, the world is not

real to the jnani simply because it appears, but only because the

real nature of the appearance is inseparable from the Self.

 

The ajnani on the other hand, is totally unaware of the

unitary nature and source of the world and, as a

consequence, his mind constructs an illusory world of

separate interacting objects by persistently

misinterpreting the sense-impressions it receives. Sri

Ramana pointed out that this view of the world has no

more reality than a dream since it superimposes a

creation of the mind on the reality of the Self. He

summarised the difference between the jnani's and the ajnani's

standpoint by saying that the world is unreal if it

is perceived by the mind as a collection of discrete

objects and real when it is directly experienced as an appearance in

the Self.

 

*Drishti-srishti vada*. If his questioners found the idea

of ajata or non-causality impossible to assimilate, he

would teach them that the world comes into existence simultaneously

with the appearance of the `I' –thought

and that it ceases to exist when the `I' –thought is absent.

This theory is known as drishti-srishti, or simultaneous creation,

and it says, in effect, that the world which

appears to an ajnani is a product of the mind that

perceives it, and that in the absence of that mind it

ceases to exist. The theory is true in so far as the mind

does create an imaginary world for itself, but from the standpoint of

the Self, an imaginary `I' creating an

imaginary world is no creation at all, and so the doctrine of ajata

is not subverted. Although Sri Ramana

sometimes said that drishti-srishti was not the ultimate

truth about creation he encouraged his followers to

accept it as a working hypothesis. He justified this

approach by saying that if one can consistently regard

the world as an unreal creation of the mind then it loses

its attraction and it becomes easier to maintain an undistracted

awareness of the `I'-thought.

 

 

*Srishti-drishti vada (gradual creation).* This is the common-sense

view which holds that the world is an

objective reality governed by laws of cause and effect

which can be traced back to a single act of creation. It

includes virtually all western ideas on the subject from

`big bang' theory to the biblical account in Genesis. Sri Ramana

invoked theories of this nature when he was

talking to questioners who were unwilling to accept the implications

of the ajata and drishti-srishti theories.

Even then, he would usually point out that such theories

should not be taken too seriously as they were only promulgated to

satisfy intellectual curiosity.

 

Literally, drishti-srishti means that the world only exists when

it is perceived whereas srishti-drishti means that the world

existed prior to anyone's perception of it. Although the former

theory sounds perverse, Sri Ramana insisted that serious

seekers should be satisfied with it, partly because it is a close

approximation to the truth and partly because it is the most

beneficial attitude to adopt if one is seriously interested in

realising the Self.]

 

( FROM THE TEACHINGS OF SRI RAMANA -edited by David Goodman)

 

Sri Ramanarpanamastu!

 

> Sankarraman would like to say apropos of the above

> message.

> It is presumptious to assert that the

> dhrishti-shrishti vada is the perpetuation of the ego.

> It is a valid sadhana for the psychologically

> introverted persons who are not capable of

> appreciating the concept of Iswara.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sankarraman-ji,

 

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

> Sankarraman would like to say apropos of the above

> message.

> It is presumptious to assert that the

> dhrishti-shrishti vada is the perpetuation of the ego.

> It is a valid sadhana for the psychologically

> introverted persons who are not capable of

> appreciating the concept of Iswara. If the

> respondent's view were correct, then we should have to

> reject valid philosophical schools like Buddhism and

> Samkhya yoga which did not feel the need for positing

> the existence of an Iswara.

> Bhaghavan Ramana consistently drove back the

> questioners to their subjective source, when questions

> relating to Creation, Iswara, etc, were posed. In the

> monumental work, 'Guruvachaka Kovai', composed by the

> great poet-saint, the foremost disciple of Bhaghavan,

> there is clear emphasis given to dhrishti-shristi vada

> or the eka-jiva vada. Of course, it may not suit the

> temperament of certain individuals. But on that score,

> such a valid path may not be branded as the assertion

> of the non-self posing as the self, involving the

> egoism alleged by our learned friend. We cannot rely

> upon Sastras alone; but should take into account the

> prdeliction of the existing individuals.

 

 

The instructions given by a Master are prescriptive and not

necessarily descriptive whereas in vada what we are more often than

not debating is the descriptive aspect of a darshana. The descriptive

aspect of a darshana for any darshana of Vedanta is obtained from the

prasthana traya bhashyas of the bhashyakara of the darshana which

over-rides the sayings of a Master if there is a conflict seen

between them. There is never any conflict really between the darshana

and a Master in the tradition of the darshana, but the Master's words

are sometimes directed to the individual depending on the time,

cultural setting and the specific pre-conditioning of the individual

concerned and it is not meant to be used as the correct standpoint of

the darshana even though it is not incorrect in the context of the

utterance. It is because of this reason that the aspirant in the path

is advised to give precedence to the Sruti over what any Master or

any other scripture says, but when an aspirant becomes a disciple of

a Guru through initiation, then the Guru's sayings are supreme for

the aspirant because they are the specific cure for the illness of

the disciple and because the disciple is now in the hands of the

Guru.

 

Since we are here debating the standpoint of Advaita Vedanta, the

bhashyas of Sri Shankaracharya on the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita and

the Brahma Sutras (prasthana trayi) are the supreme authority for

resolving any issue that may come up. Incidentally, these bhashyas

reject all the schools of Buddhism as well as the darshana of Samkhya

and a sadhaka on the path of Advaita would be well-advised to study

the reasons for such rejection.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear AdiMa,

 

Appropos your post on the captioned subject - WOW!

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

> *Ajata vada* or the theory of non-causality. This is an

> ancient Hindu doctrine which states that the creation of

> the world never happened at all. It is a complete denial

> of all causality in the physical world. Sri Ramana

> endorsed this view by saying that it is the jnani's (Man

> who is Self-realised) experience that nothing ever

> comes into existence or ceases to be because the

> Self alone exists as the sole unchanging reality. It is a

> corollary of this theory that time, space, cause and effect,

> essential components of all creation theories, exist only in the

> minds of ajnanis (ignorant) and that the experience of the Self

> reveals their non-existence.

>

> This theory is not a denial of the reality of the world, only

> of the creative process which brought it into existence. Speaking

> from his own experience Sri Ramana said that the jnani is aware

> that the world is real, not as an assemblage of interacting

> matter and energy, but as an uncaused appearance in the Self.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> > *Ajata vada* or the theory of non-causality. This is an

> > ancient Hindu doctrine which states that the creation of

> > the world never happened at all. It is a complete denial

> > of all causality in the physical world. Sri Ramana

> > endorsed this view > > reveals their non-existence.

> > This theory is not a denial of the reality of the world, only

> > of the creative process which brought it into existence. Speaking

> > from his own experience Sri Ramana said that the jnani is aware

> > that the world is real, not as an assemblage of interacting

> > matter and energy, but as an uncaused appearance in the Self.

 

Namaste All,

 

This last para is Godman's interpretation of what Ramana meant. I

would disagree with that, as being final, and have posted before on

this.

There is another step/truth; when the Jnani drops the body the world

disappears as never having happened in the first place. That the

appearance on the Self never happened either.....Not only is the rope

not a snake there is no rope at all.....ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik

wrote:

> Namaste Sri Sankarraman-ji,

>

> advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman

> <shnkaran>

> wrote:

>

> >

>

> The instructions given by a Master are prescriptive

> and not

> necessarily descriptive whereas in vada what we are

> more often than

> not debating is the descriptive aspect of a

> darshana.

 

From

Sankarraman

 

 

The Vedantasutras, no doubt, reject the

unorthodox schools like Buddhism, and all the five

schoos other than Uttaramimamsa on grounds of their

philosophical incompleteness. But the different

Acharyas themselves interpret the sutras differently.

Using the dialect and logic, the sharp witted persons

can propound any idea as final, a new logician

unsettling the theories of an earlier logician. It is

on this account that Acharya Sankara denounces

logicians. But in order to outwit the dualistic

schools, the ideas of the schools of Buddhism have

been freely employed both in the Mandukya Karika and

the Vedanta Sutra by Acharya Sankara. Similarly to

undo the systems of Buddhism denying reality to the

waking state, the logic of the dualistic schools have

been borrowed. Acharya Sankara, apart from the

realization of the transcendental Being, has had the

mission of establishing the Hindu thoughts, which

alone, he felt, would enable people of diverse paths

to reach the Consummation of Life. If we decry the

unorthodox schools on account of their having been

rejected by the Vedas, where is the unanimity even in

the minds of the traditional teachers Acharya Sankara

has been branded as a Buddhist in disguise by Acharya

Ramanuja, even Acharya Ramanuja having been superceded

by Acharya Madhva. In such a bewildering situation in

which an individual finds in his search for truth, how

can he depend on the mere verbal descriptions, the

scriptures are abounding in. As Bhaghavan says all

these ideas of Advaita, Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita

arise only after the arising of the I, which is the

primary datum of all experience, and infact

constitutes the true book to be read.

with warm regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.

http://farechase.

[Guest guest]

--- adi_shakthi16 <adi_shakthi16 wrote:

> sRI Ganesan Sankararaman-ji!

>

> i LOve addressing you like this for i take the name

> of three gods all

> at the same time - Lord Ganesha , Lord Shankara and

> Lord Rama! wow!

>

> i also like the way you refer to yourself as

> 'Sankararaman' -

> vaishnaivites normally say 'ADIYEN' and realized

> souls say ' this

> atma' - This is one way to subdue the ego ! instead

> of saying 'I' ...

>

> on another note, i am amazed to see you taking the

> names of all

> spiritual leaders from J.krishnamurthy to u.g.

> Krishnamurthy and From

> OSHO to Sri Ramana ALL IN ONE BREATH!

>

>> Sankarraman feels extremely indebted to Adisakti or

whomsoever, who assumes that pseudonym, for his gentle

and lucid response to my thoughts conveyed in this

website. Sankarraman has studied extensively the work

of David Godman, 'Be What You Are'. Unfortunately, Mr.

Godman is labouring under the presumption that most of

the devotees of Bhaghavan have not understood his

teachings, Arthur Osborne included. In a website in

which he has given an interview he has made a

statement to the effect that an European found to his

dismay that none of the devotees had understood the

teachings of Bhaghavan, as they could not convey to

him as to what Bhaghavan taught. Mere intellectual

clarity, ability to expound in simple words the great

teachings of great masters, by itself, does not confer

on one the true understanding. As J.K says, the word

is not the thing. David aims at accuracy in

expression, which in spite of its merit, is not

complete. Further, Mr. David Godman is more concerned

about the veracity of the verbal data, reading too

much into the outer expressions of the Great Master.

Apropos the respondents amazement at Sankarraman's

being comfortable with all the masters, it is pointed

out that each teacher has his own uniqueness, teachers

like Bhaghavan being a rare excellence, the like of

which one cannot see. The various teachers use the

various types of languages; but if one carefully looks

at the essence of their teachings, one could glean

only the Manonasa as the ultimate, which J.K

identifies with the absence of the psychological

individuality. If one goes through the Saiva

Siddhantha metaphysics, we could glean from it even

parallels to the teachings of K and Bhghavan. AS Swamy

Vivekananda has said beautifully:" Each soul is

potentially divine; the goal is to manifest the

divinity within; do this either by work or worship, or

control of nature, external or internal; all other

things, doctrines and dogmas, rituals, temples and

worship, are only secondary details. Only, the

Dhrishti-Shrishti vada, very much traceable in the

teachings of Bhaghavan, appeals to my intuition.

Since, whoever, who hold different theories and brand

this as an ego-trip, are only in the sight of the

individual, the individual should hold all those,

himself included, that also being alien, as spurious

offshoots of the one Self.

With warm regards,

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Madathil Nair is compelled to interject as appears in below.

Please forgive me for doing this.

 

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

> >> Sankarraman feels extremely indebted to Adisakti or

> whomsoever, who assumes that pseudonym, for his gentle

> and lucid response to my thoughts conveyed in this

> website.

 

[shri Sankarraman, for your information, Adi Shakti, is a graceful

lady with a beautiful mind. Adi Shakti is supremely feminine!]

 

Sankarraman has studied extensively the work

> of David Godman, 'Be What You Are'. Unfortunately, Mr.

> Godman is labouring under the presumption that most of

> the devotees of Bhaghavan have not understood his

> teachings, Arthur Osborne included. In a website in

> which he has given an interview he has made a

> statement to the effect that an European found to his

> dismay that none of the devotees had understood the

> teachings of Bhaghavan, as they could not convey to

> him as to what Bhaghavan taught.

 

[David Godman has taken pains to meticulously record Bhagawan's

teachings and we all are indebted to him for that. Whether he

understood Bhagwan or presented his teachings with clarity is a

debatable point. How can Shri Sankarraman claim that he has

understood Bhagawan well with his accusing finger pointed at another

Bhagawan devotee - Godman?]

 

Mere intellectual

> clarity, ability to expound in simple words the great

> teachings of great masters, by itself, does not confer

> on one the true understanding.

 

[understanding presupposes intellectual clarity.]

 

As J.K says, the word

> is not the thing. David aims at accuracy in

> expression, which in spite of its merit, is not

> complete. Further, Mr. David Godman is more concerned

> about the veracity of the verbal data, reading too

> much into the outer expressions of the Great Master.

 

[That could be Godman's unique style. Why bother? The important

point is if the reader understands and that is not a one way process.

Quite a bit depends on the reader's spiritual and intellectual

development. I have seen people who have high regards for Godman.

Many have quoted him profusely on this list. I am an ardent follower

of one of our renowned contemporary teachers. Yet, I find that that

same teacher has many detractors. The pertinent question therefore

is if the writings help. I have no doubt that Godman's have helped

many.]

> Apropos the respondents amazement at Sankarraman's

> being comfortable with all the masters,

 

[i am yet to notice any comfort on Shri Sanakarraman's part with

Sankara to whom this List is devoted.]

 

it is pointed

> out that each teacher has his own uniqueness, teachers

> like Bhaghavan being a rare excellence, the like of

> which one cannot see. The various teachers use the

> various types of languages; but if one carefully looks

> at the essence of their teachings, one could glean

> only the Manonasa as the ultimate, which J.K

> identifies with the absence of the psychological

> individuality.

 

[Has JK made this claim? ManonAsha does not leave anything behind.

With the absence of psychological individuality, in my opinion,

fullness should remain and that is not nAsha. nAsha means total

destruction. What I, as an advaitin, visualize (I am sure you are

also visualizing unless you are already a Master.] is the merging of

the individual mind in the Universal. In UpadeshasAra, the words

used by Bhagwan are 'lIyatE manaH'. It is a dissolving. Dissolving

in what is the big question. If ever Bhagawan has, therefore, used

the term manonAsha, don't we have to rightly understand it as

manolayaH?

 

If one goes through the Saiva

> Siddhantha metaphysics, we could glean from it even

> parallels to the teachings of K and Bhghavan.

 

[Well, I have not studied Saiva SiddhAnta. There may be parallels

because both Bhagwan and JK have common roots; they are not isolated

offshoots from nothingness.]

 

AS Swamy

> Vivekananda has said beautifully:" Each soul is

> potentially divine; the goal is to manifest the

> divinity within; do this either by work or worship, or

> control of nature, external or internal; all other

> things, doctrines and dogmas, rituals, temples and

> worship, are only secondary details.

 

[in the first part of his statement, he said "work or worship". The

mentioning of temples and worship as secondary details in the latter

part of the statement is, therefore, a contradiction. Doctrines and

dogmas cannot be even secondary. They don't help at all.]

 

Only, the

> Dhrishti-Shrishti vada, very much traceable in the

> teachings of Bhaghavan, appeals to my intuition.

 

[Well and good. It appeals to me also. I should imagine

Chittaranjanji is no exception. If he seemed to have opined to the

contrary, his statements should be read against the context of the

point he was driving home. Adiji has already shown how Bhagwan has

cleverly employed the different vAdAs in his teachings. Godman, whom

you have accused of misrepresentation, says the same thing at this

link:

 

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

 

If you therefore find Godman inaccurate, please elaborate your

understanding of the driSti-sriSti vAda so that we can understand

where Godman has erred.]

> Since, whoever, who hold different theories and brand

> this as an ego-trip, are only in the sight of the

> individual, the individual should hold all those,

> himself included, that also being alien, as spurious

> offshoots of the one Self.

 

[Your detractors on this list have been very polite. They have not

levelled any accusations as you have done against Godman. By the way,

the Self being genuine, It can't have spurious offshoots. What we

consider spurious due to our ignorance is also the Self.]

 

> With warm regards,

 

[in keeping with the general style of your writing, don't you think

you ought to say 'Sankarraman sends his warm regards'?.

> Sankarraman

 

[The signing off is then unnecessary. Who is there to sign off?]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> Madathil Nair is compelled to interject as appears

> in below.

> Please forgive me for doing this.

>

> advaitin, Ganesan

> Sankarraman <shnkaran>

> wrote:

> > >> Sankarraman feels extremely indebted to

> Adisakti or

> > whomsoever, who assumes that pseudonym, for his

> gentle

> > and lucid response to my thoughts conveyed in this

> > website.

>

> Sankarraman would like to say that he does not

accuse David of having misunderstood the teachings of

Bhghavan; except that he feels that he (David) should

not have attempted to assay the understanding of the

direct disciples of Bhaghavan like Arthur Osborne. To

construe Arthur Osborne as not having understood the

teachngs of Bhaghavan on the basis of some stray

remarks made, would be a tragic error. It is on that

score only that the respondent wants to convey the

thought that a mere intellectual clarity, which is no

doubt very fine, does not qualify us to sit in

judgement on the level of the understanding of the

great ones. The respondent is also grateful to David

for the amazing and prodigious contribution he has

made to spiritual literature.

With warm regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

> ---

> > > .

>

> Namaste All,

>

> This last para is Godman's interpretation of what Ramana meant. I

> would disagree with that, as being final, and have posted before on

> this.

> There is another step/truth; when the Jnani drops the body the world

> disappears as never having happened in the first place. That the

> appearance on the Self never happened either.....Not only is the rope

> not a snake there is no rope at all.....ONS..Tony.

 

Sankarraman would like to express his acquiescence with the view of

the respondent. Jnaneswar, in his monumental work, "Amirthanubhav"

(Experience of Immortality), has said that finally the rope itself

will have been found to be unreal.

with warm regards

sankarraman

>

[Guest guest]

Respected Sri Sankararaman-ji!

 

Yes! Adi_shakthi16 is my ID - after trying out many ids , i

have finally taken refuge under this divine sounding ID. Sir, my real

ID is the same as yours and others and that is 'Tat Twam Asi' but

till i really discover that on my own, i am not qualified to use that

beautiful id! smile! In this janma , God has accorded ME a 'female'

body and form and therefore i am proud of being 'divinely feminine' (

thanx nairji - i know i can count on you IN times of need! )

 

Now, Shankararamanji ( you are using two ids right now , but i prefer

this one - combining both shiva and vishnu in one- Harihara) , may i

please share a story from 'Sri Shankara Dig Vijayam' ?

 

 

"One day in the very early hours while the darkness of night was

still lingering, Shankara accompanied by his disciples was proceeding

to the Manikarnika Ghat for the daily ablution at dawn in the holy

waters of Ganga. On the way, a pathetic sight attracted his eyes. On

the path leading to the river sat a young woman. She was the very

picture of grief. A dead body, evidently of her husband, lay on the

ground, its head resting on her lap. She was wailing loudly and

soliciting help from all present there for the proper performance of

the funeral rites of her departed husband. She had been sitting with

a corpse in such a way that the narrow path leading to the

Manikarnika Ghat was quite blocked. Shankara waited for long, it was

getting quite late for the bath, and there was no other path leading

to Manikarnika Ghat. He had, therefore, to ask the sorrowing woman, "

Mother, if you will remove the corpse to one side of the pathway, we

can move on to the river ". The woman seemed to be so overwhelmed

with grief that she could not pay attention to Shankara's words. On

being repeatedly requested by Shankara for the removal of the

lifeless body to one side of the pathway, the woman responded telling

him, " Why, Great Soul, why do you not yourself ask the corpse to

move aside ?" Hearing her words Shankara told her in a voice choked

with compassion, " Mother, you are besides yourself with grief. Can a

corpse ever move of its own accord! Has it in itself the needed

momentum for moving aside? " The woman then fixed her gaze on

Shankara and spoke, " Why, you best of ascetics, you hold that it is

the one and only one Brahman who is the sole authority of the

universe and Shakti is indifferent. Is this not so? When Brahman is

ever present everywhere, why should not the corpse then move? "

Hearing the woman's utterance which was pregnant with wisdom,

Shankara stood astounded and began to think over its import.

But where was the woman now? And where was the corpse? In a trice

everything had receded. What divine sport was this! Shankara's mind

was filled with an indescribable joy. Within and without, he

experienced the sportive play of the Great Enchantress, Mahamaya, who

is none but Adya Shakti or the Primal Energy. It was because of her

glance that earth and heaven throbbed. Bending on his knees, Shankara

began to sing in praise of the Goddess Mahatripurasundari, the sole

refuge of the universe.

" Oh Goddess Supreme ! Brahman, Vishnu, Maheshwara, Indra, Chandra

or Surya or any one for the matter of that have I never known. I am

taking refuge at thy feet. Thou art my sole shelter. Thou my only

heaven, Mother Bhavani! I have surrendered myself to thee. In debate

and in danger, in error and in alien lands, in water and in fire, on

hills, among foes and in forests, do thou protect me every where and

in all places. Thou art alone my sheet-anchor. Thou alone my only

refuse security- Bhavanyashtakam !"

"Shankara now realized that the Goddess Supreme, the dispenser of

boons to humanity, who is worshipped by the Lord of the Universe

Himself, had out of her divine and mysterious Grace, made him become

aware intensely of her magnanimous glory and grace. She was it, he

understood the Creator, the Preserver, and the Destroyer of this

phenomenal universe and it was She again that bestowed material

abundance and also the final salvation from conditioned existence. It

was by the inducement of Her glance of Divine Sport that the Universe

blossomed out. It was in her affection-filled bosom that the Universe

had its being, and it was she who bore in Her, being the granary of

the cosmic universe. All this Shankara realized with clarity and

fullness by a moment of Mother's divine Grace. His heart felt

strangely filled. He finished his bath at the Manikarnika Ghat and

came back to his residence with an enchanted mind. His mode of

thought and his pattern of behavior now underwent a revolutionary

change. He had already experienced that the individual Soul-Jiva and

the Infinite Soul Brahman were identical and non-different. He now

understood that the attributeless absolute Brahman was just a

witness, a mere spectator and no more. The authorship of the universe

was that of the Primordial Energy Adya Shakti."

 

Adi Shankara , though a Brahma-jnani, said " Shankara was the best of

the knowers of the Brahman, and he standing at the meeting point of

wisdom and devotion, Jnana and Bhakti, said, " O Paramatman, though

the distinction that obtained between thee and me has been

obliterated and in consequence the sameness has set in between us, I

am really Thine. Never art though mine. For even though the ocean and

the wave are identical and non-different, the wave is after all the

ocean's and the wave can never claim the ocean as a part of it. "

 

 

In Shatpadi Stotra , Adi shankara sings thus :

 

" O Paramatman, though the distinction that obtained between thee and

me has been obliterated and in consequence the sameness has set in

between us, I am really Thine. Never art though mine. For even though

the ocean and the wave are identical and non-different, the wave is

after all the ocean's and the wave can never claim the ocean as a

part of it. " (VERSE 3)

 

SPEAKING OF 'ROPE' - may be the 'rope' never existed but do you think

The Lord Damodhara ( y Krishna's form as a baby tied with a 'rope'

on his belly to a wooden grinding mortar ) is also 'Maya' ?

 

Those who are situated in 'prema-bhakti' do not desire anything

else !

 

Here is verse 8 from Sri Damodara Ashtakam

 

namas te 'stu damne sphurad-dipti-dhamne

tvadiyodarayatha visvasya dhamne

namo radhikayai tvadiya-priyayai

namo 'nanta-lilaya devaya tubhyam

 

0 Lord Damodara, I first of all offer my obeisances to the

brilliantly effulgent rope which binds Your belly. I then offer my

obeisances to Your belly, which is the abode of the entire universe.

I humbly bow down to Your most beloved Srimati Radharani, and I offer

all obeisances to You, the Supreme Lord, who displays unlimited

pastimes.

 

You are right ! All translated works my have some flaws and may be

David Goodman may have very well misinterpreted ( after all he was

trying to tranlate Sri MURUGANAR'S WORKS FROM TAMIL TO ENGLISH )

 

IN any case, Enlightenment is an 'individual' experience' and cannot

be packaged and marketed in Books!

 

i leaave you with this verse

 

"The one who explains, lies.

How can you describe

the true form of Something

In whose presence you are blotted out?

And in whose being you still exist?"

-- Rabi'a al-'Adawiyya

 

Hari Aum !

[Guest guest]

--- adi_shakthi16 <adi_shakthi16 wrote:

> Respected Sri Sankararaman-ji!

>

> Yes! Adi_shakthi16 is my ID - after trying out

> many ids , i

> have finally taken refuge under this divine sounding

> ID. Sir, my real

> ID is the same as yours and others and that is 'Tat

> Twam Asi' but

> till i really discover that on my own, i am not

> qualified to use that

> beautiful id! smile! In this janma , God has

> accorded ME a 'female'

> body and form and therefore i am proud of being

> 'divinely feminine' (

> thanx nairji - i know i can count on you IN times of

> need! )

>

> Now, Shankararamanji ( you are using two ids right

> now , but i prefer

> this one - combining both shiva and vishnu in one-

> Harihara) , may i

> please share a story from 'Sri Shankara Dig Vijayam'

> ?

>

>

> "Respected Mother,

 

Sankarraman is indebted to you

for your sincere efforts to eradicte his ego. I did

not mean to suggest that David misunderstood the

teachings of Bhaghavan. I only expressed my feeling of

dismay over his sitting in judgement on Osborne's

understanding of vichara-marga of Bhaghavn.

Incidentally, I may state that I myself have

translated the prose version of Guruvachaka Kovai,

rendered by Sadu Om. Michel James has already

translated this work and this has been published by

Sadu Om people. My translation was sent to Aham

foundation, who were examining the merits of the work.

They brought our a few excerpts in their web. Mr

Michel misunderstood this to be a concoction of his

own work, and objected to its being cast in the web.

When I wrote to David sending a copy of the

translation, he went through the work and understood

it to be an original work. David disabused Michel's

conclusion, and was kind enough to offer his remarks.

I do not have anything to find fault with David, as a

respondent has unfortunately concluded. In the process

of my translation work, I could understand that

Bhaghavan has recognized the Dhrishti-Shrishti vada as

a valid path. Hence my harping on that theme. As a

respondent wrote,it is not that I am uncomfortable

with the teachings of Adi Sankara. It is by virtue of

my particular predeliction I am holding on to my own

ideas. If any member feels that I have exceeded my

limits in expressing my thoughts, may I crave their

pardon. May Bhaghavan forgive me. In spite of my Hindu

Advaita leaning, I am not able to dismiss the sincere,

but unorthodox teachings of J.K and U.G, as I have

seen both of them, and am sure that in spite of their

apparent denunciation of tradition, they are great

yogis. Each flower has its own unique perfume.

With warm regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

 

[Guest guest]

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> Madathil Nair is compelled to interject as appears

> in below.

> Please forgive me for doing this.

>

> advaitin, Ganesan

> Sankarraman <shnkaran>

> wrote:

> > >>

>

> Sankarraman would beg to state that Bhaghavan

cautioned the devotees against Manolaya, which has

been pointed out clearly in the work of David and a

small work by one Ramanananda Giri(Crumbs from the

table), wherein Bhaghavan says that Manolaya is not

the goal; but is only still a state of nescience,

Manonasa alone constituting the consummation, a

position clearly averred by Acharya Gaudapada in his

Mandukakarika. By way of digression the respondent

would like to reiterate that he has not accused David

of misunderstanding of the teachings of Bhaghavan. He

only pointed out that David was not correct in his

pronouncement that Arthur Osborne did not correctly

understand the Self-enquiry taught by Bhaghavan.

 

 

With warm regards

Sankarraman

>

>

> >

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sankararaman-ji !

 

You write :

 

"Respected Mother,

 

(Sankarraman is indebted to you for your sincere efforts to eradicte

his ego.)

 

Sir, who am i to readicate your'ego' ? This Earth Mother is just a

mere 'instrument in the hands of the Cosmic Mother !Our Divine Mother

is the great 'Ego-Buster' !

 

To me , it matters least whether David Goodman sat over judgement

over Arthur Osborne ! To me , they are just ardent followers of Sri

Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi and introduced Ramana Maharishi's teachings

to the West! I think we all owe a debt of grastitude to both these

gentlemen for popularising the 'Atma-vichara' philosophy of Bhagwan

Ramana !

 

Congratiulations to you , Sir ! i am delighted to learn about your

book-writing endeavors ! That is so wonderful! Good Luck!

 

You write :

 

"I could understand that Bhaghavan has recognized the Dhrishti-

Shrishti vada as

 

Yes! Pl Read what Bhagwan himself says on this subject :

 

"There are two schools in Advaita: 1. Drishti srishti (simultaneous

creation) and 2. Srishti drishti (gradual creation).

 

There is the Tantric Advaita which admits three fundamentals jagat,

jiva, Isvara - world, soul, God. These three are also real. But the

Reality does not end with them. It extends beyond. That is the

Tantric Advaita. The Reality is limitless. The three fundamentals do

not exist apart from the Absolute Reality. All agree that Reality is

all-pervading; that Isvara pervades jiva; therefore the jiva has

eternal being. His knowledge is not limited. Limited knowledge is

only imagined by him. In truth, his is infinite knowledge. Its limit

is Silence. This truth was revealed by Dakshinamurti. For those who

still perceive these three fundamentals they are said to be

realities. They are concomitant with the ego.

 

True, the images of gods are described in great detail. Such

description points only to the final Reality. Otherwise why is the

special significance of each detail also given? Think. The image is

only a symbol. Only that which lies beyond name and form is Reality.

Saiva Siddhanta and Vedanta have the common aim of the same Truth.

*Otherwise how could Sri Sankaracharya, the greatest exponent of

Advaita, sing praises of gods? Obviously he did so knowingly.*

 

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~alfar2/ramana.htm

 

When one of Adi Shankara's disciples questioned him:

 

"mumukSunNA kiM tvaritaM vidheyam?"

 

"What should the seeker who is desirous to attain Salvation do

immediately?

 

Acarya's reply:"satsangatir nirmamateza bhaktiH"

 

Adi Shankaracarya replied "that the bonds of material attachment

should be broken, and the mind attached to God and the

aspirants should seek the Association of Saints."

 

 

The desciple again asked:"kiM karma kRtvA na zocanIyaM?"

 

"What is that work which a wise man performs and does

not repent?"

 

Adi Shankaracarya immediately said:"kAmAri-kaMsAri amarcanAkhyam"

 

"One who is devoted to God (Lord Krishna) is carefree.

 

In fact Acharya Shankara, the greatest advicate of Advaita doctrine,

advised his Own Mother Aryambaal to practice devotion to Lord

Krishna and Blessed her with the Vision of the Lord.

 

 

Not only that, listen to his next proclamation -"kAmyopAsana

yArthayanty anudinaM kincit phalaM svepsitam,kecit svargam

athApavargam apare yogAdi yajnAdibhiH,asmAkaM yadunandanAMghri yugala

dhyAnAvadhAnArthinAm,kiM lokena damena kiM nRpatinA svargApavargaizca

kiM?"

 

"Those who waste their time for the attainment of celestial joys or

Liberation (mukti- apavarga) are Fools! I DO not want any of that ! O

I only desire to remain engrossed in the Sweet Remembrance of the

Lotus Feet of Lord Krishna. What is the need for heaven or

Mukti to Prema Bhaktas of Lord?"

 

Thus Sri Shankara appears to consider all objects, including final

Liberation as insignificant in comparison to constant Loving

Meditation of the Lotus Feet of Lord Krishna!

 

One needs to read 'Prabodha Sudhakara' to understand the Acharya's

Divine Love for the lotus feet of the Lord Krishna!

 

Sankararamanji, i do not know whether you are uncomfortable with the

teachings of Adi shankara Bhagvadapada ! but i am certainly

uncomfortable with the presence of U.G.kRISHNAMURTHY in these

discussions . Do you know why?

 

I read on the internet that U.G. Krishnamurthy once met Sri Ramana

and after this encounter labelled Sri Ramana as an 'arrogant entity'

 

here it goes :

And that reminds of UG Krishnamurthy visiting Ramana, finds Ramana

giggling

over a comic strip.

 

UG asked whether he Ramana can given him (UG) enlightenment.

 

Ramana is reported to have replied "I can, but can you take it?"

 

UG went away and states elsewhere, that Ramana was the most arrogant

entity he had met because if UG was not able to receive it, who else

could?

(Obviously there is no arrogance in that statement.<LOL>)

 

And the joke was UG did finally awaken and now has a greater

arrogance than Ramana.

 

(http://www.nonduality.com/hl498.htm - 48k )

 

After ALL. U.G. Krishnamurthy is the guru of movie stars so he

should know the art of 'entertaining' more than 'enlightening' !

 

Nobody can hold a candle to our 'Maharishi' - He is 'Light' itself!

 

As David Frawley writes :

 

" With Sri Ramana Vedanta became a living presence, a radiant flame

that persisted throughout all time and space. At the same time Ramana

was not trapped in tradition or ceremony, mere book learning or dry

ritual. His Advaita was simple, direct and modern, as well as

faithful to the highest realization. It was quite adaptable and open

to each individual. "

 

Yes ! It is true each flower has its own perfume!!

 

But a 'Rose' has a 'fragrance uniquely its own !

 

Hari Aum!!

[Guest guest]

--- adi_adikshakthiadi_adikshakthiahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear SankSankararaman!ji

>

> You write :

>

> "Respected Mother,

>

> (SankSankarramanindebted to you for your sincere

> efforts to eradyour his ego.)

>

> Sir, who am i to readreadicateryour'egoThis Earth

> Mother is just a

> mere 'instrument in the hands of the Cosmic Mother

> !Our Divine Mother

> is the great 'Ego-Buster' !

>

> To me , it matters least whether David Goodman sat

> over judgyour over Arthur Osborne ! To me , they are

just ardent

> followers of Sri Sri BhagBhagwanaRamanaarishi and

introduced RamaRamanaMaharishi's teachings

> to the West!

 

Respected Mother,

It is very kind of you to have

responded to my mail. I can understand your

bewilderment in regard to U.G. being surrounded by

persons apparently not serious in their outlook. But,

you might be aware that some siddhas unconventional in

their outlook, apparently behaving in a manner not in

conformity with the existing religious order. If you

read the account of the eighteen siddhas, perhaps you

might be able to understand that still there are

certain accomplished ones with a bizarre outer facade,

which does not detract from their great teachings. As

you pointed out I had better not refer to them in

these columns, in spite of my having been influenced

by them.

yours ever in BhagBhaghavanaRamanana

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

Start your day with - Make it your home page!

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

--- adi_shakthi16 <adi_shakthi16 wrote:

> Dear Sankararaman-ji !

>

>

>

> ste their time for the attainment of

> celestial joys or

> Liberation (mukti- apavarga) are Fools! I DO not

> want any of that ! O

> I only desire to remain engrossed in the Sweet

> Remembrance of the

> Lotus Feet of Lord Krishna. What is the need for

> heaven or

> Mukti to Prema Bhaktas of Lord?"

>

> Thus Sri Shankara appears to consider all objects,

> including final

> Liberation as insignificant in comparison to

>

> Sankararamanji, i do not know whether you are

> uncomfortable with the

> teachings of Adi shankara Bhagvadapada ! but i am

> certainly

> uncomfortable with the presence of U.G.kRISHNAMURTHY

> in these

> discussions . Do you know why?

>

> Respected Mother,

I am also aware of whatever you

have come to be aware of U.G.Krishnamurthy through the

internet. Since you are uncomfortable with the

presence of U.G in this forum, I had better not bring

him into this forum. I am not sure whether you are

aware of the fact that David Godman in his search for

other masters than Bhaghavan, has met U.G and had an

extensive interview with him, his account of U.G

having appeared in no less a journal than Mountain

Path. Ramanashram authorites did not feel

uncomfortable to publish this. Our being comfortable

or uncomfortable with particular individuals/teachers

is merely by virtue of our cultural conditioning, that

having nothing to do with knowing our true nature,

which discovery is higly original. Its verbal

expression my or may not be in conformity with the

Hindu tradition. If we have only the Hindu texts as

the acid test to conclude whether one has arrived, we

may have to excempt all the teachers from this list,

which I feel may not be correct. Since this forum

confines itself only to the Hindu tradition, I had

better be merely an onlooker, not being very well

qualified in the archiac terminologies of tradition,

except its highly purified version of Bhaghavan, shorn

of all intellectual gimmack, which appeals even to a

so-called irreligious mind.

with warm regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sankarramanji.

 

As a Moderator of this Group, I request you to kindly read our Home

Page. The objectives of this Group are detailed there unambiguously.

 

As a well-known Advaitin said, advaitic knowledge exists in several

cultures the world over. It is not the monopoly of any single Indian

group. But, we in India are fortunate to have a well-built, fool-

proof methodology to arrive at it. By methodology, I mean both

methods and the science of them through which enquiry is

systematically developed and knowledge derived.

 

It is, therefore, quite natural that most of us in this List attach

importance to our unique methodology and the terminology that goes

with it. That doesn't necessarily mean that other thoughts that

converge in the knowledge of the Self are unwelcome here.

 

So, you are most welcome to continue your pertinent forays into the

realm of Truth be they from JK, UGK or any other guru Indian or non-

Indian. But, we would be more comfortable if you appreciate the

significance of the terminology we use and endeavour to abide by it.

Also, if you have a different terminology, please try to relate it to

our familiar moorings as much as possible so that we are not shouting

out at each other from two different shores worlds apart.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

> .....If we have only the Hindu texts as

> the acid test to conclude whether one has arrived, we

> may have to excempt all the teachers from this list,

> which I feel may not be correct. Since this forum

> confines itself only to the Hindu tradition, I had

> better be merely an onlooker, not being very well

> qualified in the archiac terminologies of tradition,

> except its highly purified version of Bhaghavan, shorn

> of all intellectual gimmack, which appeals even to a

> so-called irreligious mind.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sankararaman-ji!

 

i am familiar with the teachings of U.G. Krishnamurthy and Osho (

bhagwan Rajneesh )also for that matter. However, i would not bracket

these two with the names of Adi shankara and Sri Ramana ! YES, THERE

ARE 'SIDDHAS' AND 'SIDDHAS' !

 

Yes, both U.G.K and osho were unconventional in their approaches - i

have been to Osho's ashram in Poona - i witnessed some incidents

there which i found to be very shocking and my 'credibility' was

shaken. However , this does not mean i hate 'osho' - i still read a

lot from his books and retain only what i find palatable and discard

the rest! As someone said, we need to be like a 'swan' in matters

relating to spirituality and know how to seperate 'MILK FROM WATER'

Osho used to roam 'naked' in his ashram - this did not 'shock' me in

the least as i know 'tantricks ' do indulge in this sort of

behavious ! But , what shocked me more was the flaws in the

teachings of his 'diamond meditation' to his disciples ! To this

day, many of his disciples are suffering from what is

called 'premature' kunalini awakening and its ill effects !

 

So when a great Rishi like Sri Ramana bhagwan asked UGK whether he

was prepared to receieve 'enlightenment' there was a deep meaning in

it! It was not out of arrogance or conceit Sri Ramana asked that

question . Atma vichara is a path only suited to those who have a

temperament for it! By the very tone of UGK'S question 'Can you give

me enlightenment' ., Sri Ramana knew what he was up against - 'AN

ARROGANT, CONCEITED ' BEING !

 

here i would like to narrate the story of how adi shankara met his

sadguru Sri Govindapada !

 

Shankara's meeting with his Sat-Guru, Govinda, is an example of right

preparation for meeting the Sat-Guru. By the time he came to Govinda,

Shankara was already a serious aspirant, with a deep intuition of the

Divine.

 

After wandering for four years , young Shankara found the forest

hermitage of his illustrious Teacher on the banks of the Godavari

River. Sage Govinda's residence was cave whose entrance Govinda had

blocked with a huge boulder, leaving only a small opening at the

bottom.

 

Shankara circumambulated the area surrounding the cave three times,

and, prostrating himself in front of the entrance, he began to chant

a hymn in praise of the Sage.

 

Govinda, seeing Shankara's feet through the opening, asked, "Who are

you?" Shankara, showing his full preparation replied, "I have come to

thee to know That." ( pl note the difference in approiach of UGK and

a humble student )

 

Upon hearing these words, Sage Govinda was delighted, and he, through

his own Spiritual advancement, could see the full and right

preparation of Shankara. In response, referring to Shankara as

his "Dear child", Govinda said,'If you want to know That, hold on to

this," extending his foot through the entrance to the cave so that

Shankara could see it. Shankara prostrated ecstatically before the

Sage's feet in true devotion and worshipped dhe Sage's feet with a

proper ceremony of puja (devotional worship).

 

Praying aloud, and offering his unconditional love to his Master, he

also requested the Master's infinite Grace. At that, Govinda pulled

both his foot and the boy Shankara into the cave. He embraced the

youth, acknowledged his rare qualifications as an aspirant, and he

Transmitted his Spiritual Blessings to Shankara by touch, word, and

glance.( Shaktipat) Shankara stayed with his Teacher for a few days

longer to receive Instruction, and then left to fulfill his mission.

 

The story of Shankara is a model of the proper preparation and

response in a devotee. Shankara's Sat-Guru readily and happily

received him and was able to instantly initiate him with his Blessing

Transmission. But the decision as to whether any aspirant is accepted

as a formal student by a Sat-Guru depends on the aspirant's genuine

qualifications, and these are most often evaluated by either the Sat-

Guru himself (or herself), or by his devotees in accordance with his

Instructions.

 

In the very first verse in Viveka Chudamani sings thus :

 

"I prostrate myself before Govinda, the true Guru and ultimate Bliss,

who is the unattainable resort of all scriptures and Vedanta. "

 

Here , Govinda means two things ! adi Sankara's Guru Govinda Pada and

lord Govinda himself. By this beautiful verse, ADI SHANKARA tells us

that guru's feet are like God's feet and he has taken shelter at the

lotus feet of the guru who is verily the god himself! Bgahvatpada

also means at the feet of the Lord!

 

 

 

 

 

 

'vinaya' is a necessary qualification for a spiritual aspirant!

 

Here is a verse from BG

 

tad viddhi pranipatena

pariprasnena sevaya

upadeksyanti te jnanam

jnaninas tattva-darsinah (BG 4.34 )

 

Just try to learn the truth by approaching a SAD GURU . Inquire from

him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized

Gurus can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the

truth.

 

Westerners like Arthur Osborne and David goodman approached Sri

Ramana in the bhava of 'vinaya' !

 

AS nairji has said we are free to quote whoever we want including

UGK if it supports the 'adwaitic' philosophy! and believe me , Adi

shankara himself was himself a most 'extraordinary' saint - Read his

Sivananda lahari where adi shankara praises the unconventional

approach of Kannapa Nayanar , one of 63 nayanar saints ! ( kannapa

Nayanar offered 'meat' to the sivalinga and later tried to offer his

own 'eyes' when he ran out of odderings! )

 

Finally, i do apologize if i hurt your feelings, Sankararamana-ji -

 

HARI AUM!

 

 

 

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

>> >

> > Respected Mother,

> I am also aware of whatever you

> have come to be aware of U.G.Krishnamurthy through the

> internet. Since you are uncomfortable with the

> presence of U.G in this forum, I had better not bring

> him into this forum.