Terminological Exactitude, The Renaissance and the Golden Chandelier

[Guest guest]

Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote: Namaste to all

Advaitins,

 

 

TERMINOLOGICAL EXACTITUDE

 

Yesterday, Sri Sankarrmanji said that the Samkhya philosophers were

perhaps not concerned with Terminological Exactitude. But of course

they were. So were the Vedanta philosophers. As Advaitins, we like

the analogy of 'the Screen on which a movie is playing' so much that

we often forget there is a Projector. We forget that the Screen is

also the Projector. The Projector projects and he who is caught in

the thrall of avidya is bewitched by the Projection.

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi had a reason to tell people not to follow the

path of tattva-jnana. The path of 'Who am I' is a derivative of the

Vedic path brought to us by the Compassionate Sage of Arunachala as a

remedial solution for this Dark Age. Within the praxis of Vedic

structure, in which Adi Shankara wrote his bhashyas, the sadhaka

comes to Vedanta with a prior study of Nyaya and Grammar. Nyaya is

tattva-jnana. Tattva-jnana is not trash, but is something that has to

come on the path of Self-realisation. It comes as 'more and more' of

the Self is seen. The Self may be undifferentiated, but paradoxically

there is a great deal of the Self to be seen! The Self cannot be

realised without tattva-jnana because they are not two things. How

can one realise the Self and not know the things that are there in

the Self?

 

The tattvas are the plants and flowers in the Garden of the Muse in

which the Creator ecstatically dances to the tune of His own Love

Affair. Tattva-jnana is the knowledge of the Garden in which the Lord

Dances. It is the knowledge of His own inscrutable form which is

there even in His Nirguna Nature. Advaita is the embracing of the

paradox in the total bliss of Union in which even a single leaf in

the Garden does not stir.

 

 

THE RENAISSANCE

 

There is a place in Bengal that goes by the name of Nadia. Nadia was

once home to the greatest philosophers that lived on earth. Tatvas:

But then, why should Bhaghavan have admonished those who came

to ask him questions relating to tatvas by replying that just as the barber

did not count the number of hairs, but simply pushed them into the dustbin, so

also one should not count the number of unreal tatvas which are anywhere

between 24 and 96, but concentrate on the Self which is immediate? Bhaghavan

has a made even a strong statement to the effect that nobody has actually seen

all these tatvas, described with meticulous assiduity in the scriptures. Does

this mean that Ramana had two ways of communicating truth? Ramana strongly

dissuaded even Kunjuswamy from embarking on an elaborate Vedantic study; but

the latter disregarding the advise of the Master had gone to Kovilur Matha, an

advaitic study center, but returned with disappointment. Different individuals

are differently constituted, nay, the same individual finds that whatever he

held dear sometime back prove to be not relevant in the

present. We cannot have any strong views in these matters. The various Masters

have poured out their natural articulations; the system-builders came and hid

the truth behind the debris of intellectual philosophy, which a common man

cannot understand.

Yours Ever in Bhaghavan

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sankarramanji,

 

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

> Does this mean that Ramana had two ways of

> communicating truth?

 

Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi had a thousand ways

of communicating the truth.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote: Namaste Sri

Sankarramanji,

 

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

> Does this mean that Ramana had two ways of

> communicating truth?

 

Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi had a thousand ways

of communicating the truth.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

Dear sir,

But then, why should Advaitin consider Saiva-siddhantha inferior

and vice-versa?

yours etc

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Religion and

spirituality Advaita

Bhagavad gita

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Superb post!! Chittaranjan-ji, if you know anything about navya nyAya,

could you post it here, along with some explanation of the difference

between the original nyAya of maharshi gautama and navya nyAya? Hope

the moderators wont mind.

 

Hari Om

Ramesh

 

On 28/11/05, Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

> Namaste to all Advaitins,

>

>

> TERMINOLOGICAL EXACTITUDE

>

> Yesterday, Sri Sankarrmanji said that the Samkhya philosophers were

> perhaps not concerned with Terminological Exactitude. But of course

> they were. So were the Vedanta philosophers. As Advaitins, we like

> the analogy of 'the Screen on which a movie is playing' so much that

> we often forget there is a Projector. We forget that the Screen is

> also the Projector. The Projector projects and he who is caught in

> the thrall of avidya is bewitched by the Projection.

>

[REST DELETED]

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sankarramanji,

 

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

> But then, why should Advaitin consider Saiva-siddhantha inferior

 

Obviously because the Advaitin sees Advaita as the Supreme Truth and

Saiva-siddhanta as falling short of the Supreme Truth.

 

Being an Advaitin, it is natural for me to speak as an Advaitin.

 

We may also speak Saiva-siddhanta and other siddhantas here, but this

group being primarily focussed on Shankara Advaita, let us not dilute

Advaita while speaking about other darshanas. There is a reason why

Shankara went to so much trouble to write the prasthana-traya-

bhashyas. Many things in the bhashyas may not be apparent on the

first reading, but we need to persevere in our manana on the meanings

of the things written therein. As long as we preserve the sanctity of

the bhashyas of Shankara, I'm okay with the other siddhantas as well.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Sankara-ji writes : \

 

(Does this mean that Ramana had two ways of

communicating truth? )

 

Chitta responds :

 

( Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi had a thousand ways

of communicating the truth. )

 

i would add my two lines to this 'profound' discussion?

 

The devotees had 1008 different ways of understanding the same

one 'Truth' - 'KOHAM' 'NAHAM DEHAM ' 'SOHAM' - SMILE

 

Sankaraji !

 

There is nothing 'frivolous' about your postings - rather , they are

very informative - within a space of few postings, you have

introduced us to the world of J. Krishnamurthy , Thayumanavar,

Avvaiyaar, Thirumular, Thomas Kemple and of course Shri Ramana among

others!

What a storehouse of knowledge ! You are an 'asset' to this group!

SMILE!

 

SIR, YOU ASK:

 

But then, why should Advaitin consider Saiva-siddhantha inferior and

vice-versa?

 

THIS IS NOT A 'FAIR' STATEMENT !! I DON'T THINK SO ! The

only 'advaitins' you should worry about are Adi Shankara and gurus

from his lineage and they don't think any path is inferior!

 

PLEASE READ WHAT Kanchi Paramacharya says :

 

" The answer is given by Pushpadanta in his Sivamahimna Stotra.

 

Trayee saankhyam yogah pasupati-matam vaishnavamiti

Prabhinne Prasthaane param-idam adah patthyamiticha;

Rucheenaam vaichitryaat rjukutila naanaa pattha jushaam,

Nrnaam-eko gamyas-tvamasi payasaam arnava iva.

 

The variety of schools, namely, Vedas, Saankhya, Yoga, Paasupata, and

Vaishnava came to be formulated to satisfy the varying tastes of men.

Though their directions may appear to point differently, yet, as one

pursues any school with the constantly ordained it, after a shorter

or longer journey, as the case may be, one will ultimately reach the

Supreme, which is Omnipresent, even as all rivers flowing in

different directions reach the ocean, which appears at land's end

everywhere and envelops the globe in all directions. Like the ocean,

the Supreme envelops all - sarvam aavrtya tishthati.. To whatever

school one may belong, one ought not to linger or stop on the way. If

a person adheres to the chosen path without faltering, God will dower

each votary, whatever his predilection, with constancy of faith to

pursue his path with devotion. "

 

" Similarly the protagonist of each school of religious thought try

to attract the seeker after truth by saying that their school is the

easiest and surest way to realise the truth. When it is recognised

that all paths lead to the same goal, there is no necessity to change

the path one is already following. There is also no room for hatred

towards a person following a different path. The temple, the God

installed therein, and the form of worship, all these three may

differ for different people, due to difference in taste. But what is

required of one is to persist in the path one is following. "

 

"The Trayambaka mantra epitomises the special kind of Moksha, which

accrues by the grace of Trayambaka, the three-eyed Siva. The Mantra

conveys the meaning that one is released from mortality by the grace

of Siva in the same way as the cucumber fruit gets separated from its

stalk, that is, automatically separated without even the cucumber

being aware of its liberation from the creeper to which it has been

all along lying attached. Every fruit, when fully ripe, is sweet,

though it may have been bitter or sour when unripe. Similarly, when

the soul becomes ripe through devotion, it is filled with the

sweetness and joy that comes from Jnana. All fruits fall down from

the branches on top, at the roots below, signifying that the root is

their source, sustenance and ultimate sanctuary. The ripe soul,

however, is the fruit of the tree of Samsaara, worldly bondage, whose

roots are on top, Oordhva moolam and whose branches grow down below

(Atha shakham). So the passage of the liberated soul is upward,

Oordhva gati, and not downward or Adho gati. Strictly speaking, there

is no gati or going, for the soul. It is released at the very place

where it existed. That is why the example of cucumber fruit is given.

This fruit does not fall down but gets itself detached from the

stalk, or rather, the stalk gets itself detached, even without the

fruit knowing it. Similarly the liberated one does not give up the

world; the world gives him up. Remembering that this life has been

vouchsafed to us to get rid of future births and deaths, let us pray

to the God of our heart, to obtain His grace to qualify for this kind

of liberation of the soul, "cucumber mukti". "

 

http://www.kamakoti.org/acall/ac-manypaths.html

 

tryambakaṃ yajâmahe sugandhim puṣṭivardhanam |

urvârukam iva

bandhanân mṛtyor mukṣîya mâmṛtât

 

"To Tryambaka we make offering, The fragrant, increaser of

prosperity; Like a cucumber from its stem, From death may I be

loosened, not from immortality"

 

 

To the three-eyed God , Lord Tryambaka , our salutations !

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Krishnamurthy-ji,

 

advaitin, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy@g...>

wrote:

>

> Superb post!! Chittaranjan-ji, if you know anything about

> navya nyAya, could you post it here, along with some

> explanation of the difference between the original nyAya of

> maharshi gautama and navya nyAya? Hope the moderators wont

> mind.

 

Thank you for your kind words. I'm afraid I'm not much familiar with

Navya Nyaya. I had once asked the same question on this list, and

someone (it was either Sadanandaji or Suderji) had replied that Navya

Nyaya had combined the categories of Nyaya and Vaisesika into one

cohesive set of categories.

 

It appears also that Navya Nyaya approaches the topic of logic from

an epistemological angle in contrast to the original Nyaya of Gautama

which begins with an ontological approach. I think this was made

necessary due to the confusion created by the epistemic approach (the

Buddhists mainly) which is a method that is prone to effacing the

distinctions between the instruments of knowledge and the objects of

knowledge. Gangesa Upadhyaya showed in a brilliant manner how the

epistemological approach also leads to realism i.e., to the

justification of ontological entities. In some ways, Navya Nyaya may

be considered the final seal on the refutation of Buddhism.

 

There is another remarkable thing about Gangesa's Tattvachintamani. I

believe that his principle of 'indeterminate perception' leads to

Advaita through a somewhat longer path. According to Gangesa, the

object of perception is initially a pure undifferentiated percept

before it stands to sensory perception as the differentiated object.

The pure undifferentiated percept is moreover said to be the totality

of the object i.e., all the particulars (vishesas) all at once. It

appears to me that this is not much different than the Advaita

doctrine of Sabda Brahman.

 

I had once ordered for a copy of the Tattvachintamani and when it

arrived I discovered that it was in Sanskrit (which I can't read).

Later I found out that the Tattvachintamani has not still been

translated into English. Recently, the first chapter was translated

by Stephen Phillips, but the book costs a phenomenal $150. In the

sixties, there was a project at the Washington University, under the

auspices of Karl Potter, to translate the book into English. The

project was given up because those who had attempted the translateion

felt that a new symbolic framework and lexicon would be needed to

depict Gangesa's philosophy in a Western language. When I read

whatever little that had been translated, I got the feeling that it

was excessively coloured by Western Analytical philosophy - to the

extent of making it unreliable.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan