Guest guest Posted December 10, 2005 Report Share Posted December 10, 2005 "For those who believe, an explanation is unnecessary. For those, who don´t believe, an explanation is impossible.” The Hindu Milk Miracle of September 21st 1995 “The best documented paranormal phenomenon of modern times.” Never before in history has a simultaneous miracle occurred on such a global scale. Television stations (among them CNN and BBC), radio and newspapers (among them Washington post, New York Times, The Guardian and Daily Express) eagerly covered this unique phenomenon, and even sceptical journalists held their milk-filled spoons to the statues of gods - and watched as the milk disappeared. It all began on September 21st when an otherwise ordinary man in New Delhi dreamt that Lord Ganesha, the elephant-headed God of Wisdom, craved a little milk. Upon awakening, he rushed in the dark before dawn to the nearest temple, where a skeptical priest allowed him to proffer a spoonful of milk to the small stone image. Both watched in astonishment as it disappeared, magically consumed by the God. What followed is unprecedented in modern Hindu history. Within hours news had spread like a brush fire across India that Ganesha was accepting milk offerings. Tens of millions of people of all ages flocked to the nation's temples. The unworldly happening brought worldly New Delhi to a standstill, and its vast stocks of milk - more than a million liters - sold out within hours. Just as suddenly as it started in India, it stopped in just 24 hours. Sep 21, 2005: 10th anniversary! Many liters of milk dissappeared through this tiny Ganesh murthi in Mumbai. Note the sluice around the stone and the towel beneath the statue (and the cricital gazes of the witnesses). A unperceived draining of the milk is impossible. Source: India Today, 26.5.1995 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2005 Report Share Posted December 11, 2005 Dearest Drapaudi, I mean Adiji :-) You wrote... > sakaraji is just questionig the moderator why they allowed 'shakti > shakti' s post o Srui Gaesha's miracles ? THE MODERATORS ARE DOING > THEIR BEST TO KEEP US 'FOCUSSED' BUT THERE ARE TOO MAY CHIEFS HERE AD > TOO FEW INDIANS HERE ! > > nobody wats to hear ; everyone wats to be heard ! > what , othing is going to deter me from my 'sadhana' ... i am leading > the topic and this is how i am going to approach the subject ; too > bad if it does not fit i with others thinking of advaita bhakti! I have been following your topic with much interest, and thank you for jumping in where angels fear to tread;-) I could not help noticing that we try so hard to explain with words something which is wordless and only known to those fortunate enough to know Grace, which you have pointed out so eloquently in one of your posts. What is jnana anyway? Is it intellectual understanding of some esoteric discussions in foreign languages, perhaps badly translated far beyond the intended meaning of the author? Is it theories of what reality is or is not? Or is it the gift of knowledge borne of Grace, nurtured by bhakti? And who is the bhakta? I hear so much that bhakti is about devotion to the Lord, yet to me bhakti comes from the knowledge of the love of the Lord, which can only be another name for jnana. Call it the Self, call it Consciousness, call it what you will. It remains the Same, regardless of what we humans want to label It. Why do you think the bhakta is so devoted and desires union? To know something unknown, a promise of what might be? Or perhaps to know again and again the wonder of a gift already shared. And really, who is wooing whom? Once the secret is out, there is no closing the door, as there was never a door in the first place, other than that created by our illusions. And if one person's illusion involves some sort of miracle which defies explanation, where is the harm in it and to whom? If everything is exactly the way it should be, then leave it alone. As Sri Ramana was known to say... "All will come right in the end." This brings me to another recent thread wherein Jody asked what would Sankara say to the following...he wrote... "I'm hoping I can ask a favor of some of you. I'm writing something about occlusion, those ideas which appear to inhibit jnana. I've come to the conclusion that what people believe about jnana as an experience can actually prevent self-realization from occurring. What do you think Shankara would say to a statement like that?" he asked. Just yesterday, Viorica posted the following excerpt from SS Cohen to HSS, and I think it is fitting to the current discussion, perhaps an answer from Ramana Maharshi to Jody's question, and certainly good enough for me!!! 4th January, 1937 A disciple remarks that Sri Bhagavan often says that maya and Reality are the same. How can that be? Bh. Shankara was criticised for his views on Maya without understanding him. He said that (1) Brahman is real, (2) The universe is unreal, and (3) Brahman is the universe. He did not stop at the second, because the third explains the other two. It signifies that the universe is real if perceived as the Self, and unreal if perceived apart from the Self. Hence Maya and Reality are one and the same. Guru Ramana - Memories & Notes, S.S. Cohen Love, Joyce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2005 Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 Namaste AdiMa Advaita establishes its stand by analysis of our day-to-day ordinary avasthA-traya experiences. Our AchAryas have consistently maintained that no other special experience is needed to realize the truth of advaita. With this background, reference to any "miraculous" incident or experience is at best tangential to advaita. At worst, it may even bring discredit to bhagvAn shankara's system if the reference is to some incident of dubious authenticity. I therefore, share the concern of moderators and some other members -- no disrespect intended. In any case, I do not understand why gaNesha drinking milk is a greater miracle than a cow turning grass into milk everyday. praNAm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2005 Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 Namaste: You have raised a valid point (also I want to thank Sri Sankaran who also raised a similar objection) and thanks for bringing it to the attention of the list. In spite of all efforts taken by the list not to permit articles that do not meet the scope and purpose of the list, some articles do sneak into the list. The list in general do not moderate all articles that appear in the list and if and when a member violates the 'honor code' then the postings from those members are moderated. This may explain the appearance of inappropriate articles apear in the list. The moderators will do their level best to limit such articles to the minimum. Thanks again for your cooperation and understanding, Ram Chandran (one of the several list moderators) advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava <sksrivastava68@g...> wrote: > > Namaste AdiMa > > Advaita establishes its stand by analysis of our day-to-day ordinary > avasthA-traya experiences. Our AchAryas have consistently maintained > that no other special experience is needed to realize the truth of > advaita. With this background, reference to any "miraculous" incident > or experience is at best tangential to advaita. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2005 Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 He said that HOW ABOUT : BRAHMA IS REAL THE UNIVERSE IS UNREAL BRAHMA IS THE UNIVERSE THEREFORE THE REAL BRAHMA APPEARS AS THE UNREAL UNIVERSE? LOVE B On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 Lady Joyce wrote : >Dearest Drapaudi, I mean Adiji :-) > >You wrote... > > > sakaraji is just questionig the moderator why they allowed 'shakti > > shakti' s post o Srui Gaesha's miracles ? THE MODERATORS ARE DOING > > THEIR BEST TO KEEP US 'FOCUSSED' BUT THERE ARE TOO MAY CHIEFS HERE AD > > TOO FEW INDIANS HERE ! > > > > nobody wats to hear ; everyone wats to be heard ! > > what , othing is going to deter me from my 'sadhana' ... i am leading > > the topic and this is how i am going to approach the subject ; too > > bad if it does not fit i with others thinking of advaita bhakti! > >I have been following your topic with much interest, and >thank you for jumping in where angels fear to tread;-) I >could not help noticing that we try so hard to explain with >words something which is wordless and only known to >those fortunate enough to know Grace, which you have >pointed out so eloquently in one of your posts. What is >jnana anyway? Is it intellectual understanding of some >esoteric discussions in foreign languages, perhaps badly >translated far beyond the intended meaning of the author? >Is it theories of what reality is or is not? Or is it the gift >of knowledge borne of Grace, nurtured by bhakti? > >And who is the bhakta? I hear so much that bhakti is about >devotion to the Lord, yet to me bhakti comes from the >knowledge of the love of the Lord, which can only be >another name for jnana. Call it the Self, call it Consciousness, >call it what you will. It remains the Same, regardless of what >we humans want to label It. Why do you think the bhakta >is so devoted and desires union? To know something >unknown, a promise of what might be? Or perhaps to know >again and again the wonder of a gift already shared. >And really, who is wooing whom? > >Once the secret is out, there is no closing the door, >as there was never a door in the first place, other >than that created by our illusions. And if one person's >illusion involves some sort of miracle which defies >explanation, where is the harm in it and to whom? >If everything is exactly the way it should be, then >leave it alone. As Sri Ramana was known to say... >"All will come right in the end." > >This brings me to another recent thread wherein Jody asked >what would Sankara say to the following...he wrote... > >"I'm hoping I can ask a favor of some of you. I'm >writing something about occlusion, those ideas which >appear to inhibit jnana. I've come to the conclusion >that what people believe about jnana as an experience >can actually prevent self-realization from occurring. > >What do you think Shankara would say to a statement >like that?" he asked. > >Just yesterday, Viorica posted the following excerpt from >SS Cohen to HSS, and I think it is fitting to the current discussion, >perhaps an answer from Ramana Maharshi to Jody's question, >and certainly good enough for me!!! > >4th January, 1937 > > > A disciple remarks that Sri Bhagavan often says that > >maya and Reality are the same. How can that be? > > >Bh. Shankara was criticised for his views on Maya without > >understanding him. > > > >He said that > > (1) Brahman is real, > (2) The universe is unreal, and > > (3) Brahman is the universe. > > > >He did not stop at the second, because the third >explains the other two. It signifies that the universe is >real if perceived as the Self, and unreal if perceived apart > from the Self. Hence Maya and Reality are one and the >same. > > > >Guru Ramana - Memories & Notes, S.S. Cohen > > > >Love, > > > >Joyce > > > > > > > >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 December 12, 2005 Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 advaitin, "Lady Joyce" <shaantih@c...> wrote: > > > A disciple remarks that Sri Bhagavan often says that > > maya and Reality are the same. How can that be? > > > Bh. Shankara was criticised for his views on Maya without > > understanding him. > > > > He said that > > (1) Brahman is real, > (2) The universe is unreal, and > (3) Brahman is the universe. > > > > He did not stop at the second, because the third > explains the other two. It signifies that the universe is > real if perceived as the Self, and unreal if perceived apart > from the Self. Hence Maya and Reality are one and the > same. > > > > Guru Ramana - Memories & Notes, S.S. Cohen > OM svaha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2005 Report Share Posted December 12, 2005 He said that > > (1) Brahman is real, > (2) The universe is unreal, and > (3) Brahman is the universe. > > He did not stop at the second, because the third > explains the other two. It signifies that the universe is > real if perceived as the Self, and unreal if perceived apart > from the Self. Hence Maya and Reality are one and the > same. praNAms Hare Krishna Yes shankara did say brahman is the universe...but just to advocate the fact that *there is no other entity* apart from brahman (yEkamEvAdvitIya brahma)...if you are *perceiving* universe (like perception of snake in a rope) that is nothing but brahman since there is nothing apart from brahman....but it does not anyway mean that *snake* is as real as rope & eternal & absolute like rope (adhishtAna) with its multifarious characters!! testing our avasthAtraya (jAgrat, svapna & sushupti) proves this fact without any doubt...any sort of flowery theory which uphold the time & space bound reality of universe cannot come in the way of our day to day experience!!! just my few thoughts at the risk of rekindling the fire of bygone topic *mAya=brahman*. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2005 Report Share Posted December 13, 2005 advaitin, "frank maiello" <egodust> wrote: > > advaitin, "Lady Joyce" <shaantih@c...> wrote: > > > > > > A disciple remarks that Sri Bhagavan often says that > > > > maya and Reality are the same. How can that be? > > > > > > Bh. Shankara was criticised for his views on Maya without > > > > understanding him. > > > > > > > > He said that > > > > (1) Brahman is real, > > (2) The universe is unreal, and > > (3) Brahman is the universe. > > > > > > > > He did not stop at the second, because the third > > explains the other two. It signifies that the universe is > > real if perceived as the Self, and unreal if perceived apart > > from the Self. Hence Maya and Reality are one and the > > same. > > > > > > > > Guru Ramana - Memories & Notes, S.S. Cohen > > > > OM svaha! Namaste, thank you for this words "the universe is unreal" maybe because it is in move....just like the moving mind "who" percieve it Brahman could be in "move".....in relation to "who or what"....? the perception of a "moving part of Brahman" (the universe....) is only a "reflection" of real Brahman but it (the universe) need real Brahman (Self) to be percieved.....and therefore it is same than Brahman Itself or .....to percieve "real" Brahman in the "unreal" universe.....does not mean that there are "two"......that there is Maya and Reality when seer and seen are One.....(Self).......Brahman Is (the universe) if not this "Oneness"....then there is Maya..... Maya can't change the reality......it only appear that it could be changed few thoughts sorry for mistakes.... Regards and love Marc 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.