On eka-jiva, subjective idealism and solipsism

[Guest guest]

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

wrote:

> 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.

>

>Dear Madathil Rajendran Nairji,

Very kind of you for

your well-meaning advise. Since I am not sure of my

being an adept in the traditional Advaita, my reading

being merely confined to the talks of Bhaghavan,

recorded by Munaghala Venakataramayah, I think it

behooves me to respond to you after I gain a clear

apprehension of the scriptures. Till then in view of

my language falling short of what has been commonly

and uniformly understood in this forum, I had better

read the articles of well-versed people from you,

being confined to it. Please, do not mistake my

disposition towards non-traditional masters to

constitute a disrespect towards tradition. My

unformulated intuition is that thought is limited and

fragmented, and that the freedom from thought that is

available to all of us in deep-sleep is a practical

pointer towards the fact of our true being, which

cannot be any thing other than bliss, being bereft of

thought. The consummation seems to be only that,

whatever path you follow, whatever be your way of

expression of That. I have used the term Mano-nasa

only as a layman to project this position; I did not

mean to construe it as one of mental-suicide, as by

the killing of an unreal adjunct, without knowing the

true nature which transcends it and is immanent in it,

one perpetuates only the stream of time. If I have

wittingly or unwittingly made some insinuations

against some by my different way of approaching the

issue and using a different language, I apologize.

Incidentally, I may state that I have read the

writings of Swamy Atmananda, whom your website quoted

represents, having come to know of him through one

Walter Keers, a Dutch gentleman, a devotee of

Bhaghavan Ramana and Nisargdatta Maharaj. I have also

read the work of one John Levy, a disciple of Swamy

Atmananda. These works have given a great fillip to my

spiritual quest. Hence, I sincerely believe that my

understanding is only towards the common truth taught

by these great masters substantiated by an objective

certitude in the form of deep sleep, which must

transpire in the waking state itself through

self-enquiry taught in the lines of Bhaghavan.

Incidentally, would you be so kind enough as to inform

me as to whether the treatise, 'Naishkamya Siddhi', of

Sri Suresvaracharya, translated into English by one

A.J.Alston, is available in any book-house in Chennai

or elsewhere. I chanced to see it in Ramanashram

library. I found it to be very illuminating.

Yours Ever in Bhaghavan Ramana

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

Yours Ever in Bhaghavan

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

Start your day with - Make it your home page!

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

Namasta All

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

 

Vivakananda has maintained two important points in accepting in any

teaching or teacher. The first and formost is that the character of

the teacher should be impeccable and unimpeachable. The second that

ones reason should never be forsaken.

 

Character of the teacher very important

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vivakananda in his lecture "Concentration - its Spiritual uses"

describes an "Apta". The following extract is from his commentory on

PATANJALI'S YOGA APHORISMS ver 7 ".. Direct perception, inference,

and competent evidence are proofs."

 

I hear it said that the character of the man is not of so much

importance as what he may say; we must first hear what he says. This

may be true in other things. A man may be wicked, and yet make an

astronomical discovery, but in religion it is different, because no

impure man will ever have the power to reach the truths of religion.

Therefore we have first of all to see that the man who declares

himself to be an Âpta is a perfectly unselfish and holy person;

secondly, that he has reached beyond the senses; and thirdly, that

what he says does not contradict the past knowledge of humanity. Any

new discovery of truth does not contradict the past truth, but fits

into it. And fourthly, that truth must have a possibility of

verification. If a man says, "I have seen a vision," and tells me

that I have no right to see it, I believe him not. Everyone must have

the power to see it for himself. No one who sells his knowledge is an

Apta. All these conditions must be fulfilled; you must first see that

the man is pure, and that he has no selfish motive; that he has no

thirst for gain or fame. Secondly, he must show that he is

superconscious. He must give us something that we cannot get from our

senses, and which is for the benefit of the world. Thirdly, we must

see that it does not contradict other truths; if it contradicts other

scientific truths reject it at once. Fourthly, the man should never

be singular; he should only represent what all men can attain. The

three sorts of proof are, then, direct sense-perception, inference,

and the words of an Apta. I cannot translate this word into English.

It is not the word "inspired", because inspiration is believed to

come from outside, while this knowledge comes from the man himself.

The literal meaning is "attained".

 

 

All Teachings to be subjected to one's reason

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vivakananda :Complete Works/Vol 2/PRACTICAL VEDANTA III

 

There must be some independent authority, and that cannot be any

book, but something which is universal; and what is more universal

than reason? It has been said that reason is not strong enough; it

does not always help us to get at the Truth; many times it makes

mistakes, and, therefore, the conclusion is that we must believe in

the authority of a church! That was said to me by a Roman Catholic,

but I could not see the logic of it. On the other hand I should say,

if reason be so weak, a body of priests would be weaker, and I am not

going to accept their verdict, but I will abide by my reason, because

with all its weakness there is some chance of my getting at truth

through it; while, by the other means, there is no such hope at all.

 

rgds

Hersh

[Guest guest]

adi_shakthi16 <adi_shakthi16 wrote: 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' !

 

Dear Mother,

I am not at all hurt by your language. Only a mind that mistakes

the psychological images gets hurt. It is not that I am free from

psychological images. I am trying to understand what J.Krishnamurthi says about

images. Krishnamurthi says that a religious mind is completely free from hurts,

neither hurting any body nor being hurt by somebody, both of them costituting

the position of the thinker being different from thought, which error, J.K

avers, we are perpetuating in our life. If we want to pick holes, we can do so

even from some of the religious texts, which are apparently full of obnoxious

ideas. We have to sift the essential from the non-essential. I am happy that

you are generous in your worldviews.

 

Yours Ever in Bhaghavan

Ramana

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.