Guest guest Posted June 30, 2006 Report Share Posted June 30, 2006 Hi All, I have a question regarding a purported quotation of Shankara. Since I became famous (joke!), people are increasingly sending me books on Advaita to review, and hopefully recommend on the website. I have just read a book by a neo-Advaitin teacher (who shall remain nameless for the moment) which has inspired me to write a detailed criticism of their position. I would be very grateful if anyone could clarify the position regarding the following. A questioner claims to be quoting from Shankara when he says: "Study of the scriptures is fruitless as long as Brahman has not been experienced. And when Brahman has been experienced, it is useless to read the scriptures." Obviously, I cannot believe for an instant that Shankara said this but my question is this. Did Shankara make a statement about studying scriptures which has been grossly misrepresented? If so, what was it and where was it made? Or does anyone know who did say it? Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2006 Report Share Posted June 30, 2006 Dennis, I think recently somebody posted this on the list but don't recall who. Anyway, extract from Katha Upanishad is below with some context. Not sure if Sankara said what you quote below. regards 1-II-22. The intelligent one having known the Self to be bodiless in (all) bodies, to be firmly seated in things that are perishable, and to be great and all-pervading, does not grieve. 1-II-23. The Self cannot be attained by the study of the Vedas, not by intelligence nor by much hearing. Only by him who seeks to know the Self can It be attained. To him the Self reveals Its own nature. 1-II-24. None who has not refrained from bad conduct, whose senses are not under restraint, whose mind is not collected or who does not preserve a tranquil mind, can attain this Self through knowledge > A questioner claims to be quoting from Shankara when he says: > > "Study of the scriptures is fruitless as long as Brahman has not been > experienced. And when Brahman has been experienced, it is useless to read > the scriptures." > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2006 Report Share Posted June 30, 2006 Hi Dennis, You might look at Vivekacudamani. v59 The study of scriptures is useless so long as the highest Truth is unknown, and it is equally useless when the highest Truth has already been known. v60 The scriptures consisting of many words are a dense forest which merely causes the mind to ramble. Hence men of wisdom should earnestly set about knowing the true nature of the Self. v162 As long as the book-learned man does not give up his identification with the body, organs, etc which are unreal, there is no talk of emancipation for him, even if he be erudite in the Vedanta philosophy. (Translated by Swami Madhavananda) Ramana Maharshi said many similar things which you can find for yourself in 'Talks', but not necessarily both statements in the same sentence. Best wishes, Peter ________________________________ advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf Of Dennis Waite 30 June 2006 21:38 advaitin Reported Shankara quotation Hi All, I have a question regarding a purported quotation of Shankara. Since I became famous (joke!), people are increasingly sending me books on Advaita to review, and hopefully recommend on the website. I have just read a book by a neo-Advaitin teacher (who shall remain nameless for the moment) which has inspired me to write a detailed criticism of their position. I would be very grateful if anyone could clarify the position regarding the following. A questioner claims to be quoting from Shankara when he says: "Study of the scriptures is fruitless as long as Brahman has not been experienced. And when Brahman has been experienced, it is useless to read the scriptures." Obviously, I cannot believe for an instant that Shankara said this but my question is this. Did Shankara make a statement about studying scriptures which has been grossly misrepresented? If so, what was it and where was it made? Or does anyone know who did say it? Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 Peter is right Dennis I have quated this sloka in the B.S notes. The sloka is avijnAte paretatve shaastrAdIstu niShpalA| vijnAtep paretatve shAstrAdIstu nishpalA|| Here the mere study of the scripture is useless for the one who has not realized. The teaching of the scripture has to be internalized. Swami Chinmayanandaji once commented a person who said he went through Gita 20 times in their study group. Swamiji said then, let the Gita go through at least once. The second part of course is trivial since once realized the study of the scripture is redundant. Bhagavaan Ramana used to listen to scriptures and used to comment that yes that is true that is true. They validate the scripture, although it itself is useless for them. They study to establish the importance of the study of the scriptures to their disciples. Hari OM! Sadananda --- Peter <not_2 (AT) btinternet (DOT) com> wrote: > Hi Dennis, > > You might look at Vivekacudamani. > > v59 > The study of scriptures is useless so long as the highest Truth is > unknown, > and it is equally useless when the highest Truth has already been > known. > > v60 > The scriptures consisting of many words are a dense forest which > merely > causes the mind to ramble. > Hence men of wisdom should earnestly set about knowing the true nature > of > the Self. > > v162 > As long as the book-learned man does not give up his identification > with the > body, organs, etc which are unreal, > there is no talk of emancipation for him, even if he be erudite in the > Vedanta philosophy. > > (Translated by Swami Madhavananda) > > Ramana Maharshi said many similar things which you can find for > yourself in > 'Talks', but not necessarily both statements in the same sentence. > > Best wishes, > > Peter > ________________________________ > > advaitin [advaitin] On > Behalf > Of Dennis Waite > 30 June 2006 21:38 > advaitin > Reported Shankara quotation > > > > Hi All, > > I have a question regarding a purported quotation of Shankara. Since I > became famous (joke!), people are increasingly sending me books on > Advaita > to review, and hopefully recommend on the website. I have just read a > book > by a neo-Advaitin teacher (who shall remain nameless for the moment) > which > has inspired me to write a detailed criticism of their position. I > would be > very grateful if anyone could clarify the position regarding the > following. > > A questioner claims to be quoting from Shankara when he says: > > "Study of the scriptures is fruitless as long as Brahman has not been > experienced. And when Brahman has been experienced, it is useless to > read > the scriptures." > > Obviously, I cannot believe for an instant that Shankara said this but > my > question is this. Did Shankara make a statement about studying > scriptures > which has been grossly misrepresented? If so, what was it and where > was it > made? Or does anyone know who did say it? > > Best wishes, > > Dennis > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 I have written a comment on this on the HS blog titled, "Are Scriptures Useful?" http://www..net/blog/index.html Peter wrote: > > Hi Dennis, > > You might look at Vivekacudamani. > > v59 > The study of scriptures is useless so long as the highest Truth is > unknown, > and it is equally useless when the highest Truth has already been known. > > v60 > The scriptures consisting of many words are a dense forest which merely > causes the mind to ramble. > Hence men of wisdom should earnestly set about knowing the true nature of > the Self. > > v162 > As long as the book-learned man does not give up his identification > with the > body, organs, etc which are unreal, > there is no talk of emancipation for him, even if he be erudite in the > Vedanta philosophy. > > (Translated by Swami Madhavananda) > > Ramana Maharshi said many similar things which you can find for > yourself in > 'Talks', but not necessarily both statements in the same sentence. > > Best wishes, > > Peter > ________________________________ > > advaitin <advaitin%40> > [advaitin <advaitin%40>] > On Behalf > Of Dennis Waite > 30 June 2006 21:38 > advaitin <advaitin%40> > Reported Shankara quotation > > Hi All, > > I have a question regarding a purported quotation of Shankara. Since I > became famous (joke!), people are increasingly sending me books on Advaita > to review, and hopefully recommend on the website. I have just read a book > by a neo-Advaitin teacher (who shall remain nameless for the moment) which > has inspired me to write a detailed criticism of their position. I > would be > very grateful if anyone could clarify the position regarding the > following. > > A questioner claims to be quoting from Shankara when he says: > > "Study of the scriptures is fruitless as long as Brahman has not been > experienced. And when Brahman has been experienced, it is useless to read > the scriptures." > > Obviously, I cannot believe for an instant that Shankara said this but my > question is this. Did Shankara make a statement about studying scriptures > which has been grossly misrepresented? If so, what was it and where was it > made? Or does anyone know who did say it? > > Best wishes, > > Dennis > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 dennisji What a coincidence! if you read my posts that appeared in triplicate TODAY I Quotedthis very verse from Viveka Chudamani -verse 59Q When the supreme reality is not understood, the study of the scriptures is useless, and study of the scriptures is useless when the supreme reality has been understoodalready. Sadaji has already explained in his post the finer nuances of this seemingly simple but profound statement. As you might be aware we had a discusston on this list as to who the autbor of vivekachudamani was! i think it was stigji who said that it was not adi shankara who authored vivekachudamani and at that time , as adi shakthi , i defended by saying that it was adi shankara who authored these verses of vivekachudamani saying the style and substance was inimitably shankara's specially the similies and the metaphors! in any case, it is one of my favorite books and i love to read it over and over again. In the ultimate analysis, it is direct experience that counts ! Real knowledge is brahma jnana alone all other knowledge including sciptural knowledge is only a means to the end ! Jab Mein Tha Tab Hari Nahin‚ Jab Hari Hai Mein Nahin Sab Andhiyara Mit Gaya‚ Jab Deepak Dekhya Mahin Translation When "I" was then Hari was not, Now Hari "is" and "I" am not All the darkness (illusions) mitigated, When I saw the light (illumination) within. >From the root word "Har" (everything) is derived the word "Hari" which is used as yet another name or expression for God – the most common being "Hari Om". In this doha, Kabir explains that till such time we are engrossed within the bounds of our (limited) ego – the mundane "I" – we are not able to experience or realize the all- pervasive attribute of God. Resultantly we are in a state of conflict, chaos and a state of ignorance aptly expressed as darkness or illusion in the doha. This darkness – the state of ignorance – diminishes, rather eliminates, when the all-pervasive effulgence of God (the light within) is perceived, realized or experienced. With this conviction we are able to transcend the bondage enforced by our ego. www.boloji.com Harihi Aum ! -- In advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite wrote: > > Hi All, > > I have a question regarding a purported quotation of Shankara. Since I > became famous (joke!), people are increasingly sending me books on Advaita > to review, and hopefully recommend on the website. I have just read a book > by a neo-Advaitin teacher (who shall remain nameless for the moment) which > has inspired me to write a detailed criticism of their position. I would be > very grateful if anyone could clarify the position regarding the following. > > A questioner claims to be quoting from Shankara when he says: > > "Study of the scriptures is fruitless as long as Brahman has not been > experienced. And when Brahman has been experienced, it is useless to read > the scriptures." > > Obviously, I cannot believe for an instant that Shankara said this but my > question is this. Did Shankara make a statement about studying scriptures > which has been grossly misrepresented? If so, what was it and where was it > made? Or does anyone know who did say it? > > Best wishes, > > Dennis > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 Namaste, all respected members, Study of the scriptures, particularly the Upanishads is the only way to get ignorance about the Self removed. However, this study has to be under a Guru, who follows the Parampara (the tradition) of Teaching. If study of the scriptures was not necessary Shankara would not have written elaborate commentaries on Prasthana Thrayam. How long the study should continue? In my opinion, till the time one understands intellectually what the scriptures say and after that, continuous Mananam must be taken up independently to own up the knowledge so gathered from the scriptures studied under a Guru, without which the knowledge will not get assimilated and until then the knowledge will not be wisdom on the part of the student. Once the wisdom is there, the scriptural knowledge, particularly what is unfolded by the Upanishads, reflects in one’s vyvaharic life. As for the necessity of experiencing “Brahman” or “Atma” as culmination of the Sadhana, including the study of the scriptures, I give below what Swami Paramarthananda says: ======================================================= “How do we experience this Atma? Sankara explains: “Praatarbhajaami manasaa vachasaamagamyam vaacho vibhaanthi nikhilaa yadanugrahena, yam neti neti vachanairnigamaa avochamstham devadevamajamachyutamaahuragryam” This deals with the knowledge of the Advaita Tattva and the means of attaining that knowledge. He says that Atma is not available for objectification by any instrument of knowledge, such as the sense organs, represented by the mind or words. Nor is it the object of any single experience in any state – waking, dream or deep sleep. But it is ever experienced as the subject in all the specific experiences, running like a thread in all of them in the form of “I am… I am… I am”. It is because of the subject (Atma) that the object (everything else) is experienced. Atma needs no proof for its existence. It is self evident. Take this example. One sees with one’s eyes, but one cannot see one’s eyes. Everything is seen by the non-seen eyes; hence every seeing is proof of non-seen eyes. It may be asked, why, if it is already there, one should work for Atma vidya? Why should one study the scriptures? It is because we keep forgetting that all experienced attributes belong to the experienced object and not to the experiencer ‘I’. We throw every attribute of the physical body on the Atma. Vedanta does not reveal any experience of Atma, but reveals the freedom of Atma from all attributes. Hence, Shankara says, ‘I meditate upon the Atma, which is non-dual, which is ever experienced and which is free from all attributes’. He describes it as the light of lights (devadevam) which illumines the luminous object itself.” ========================================================= Hari Om Dennis Waite <dwaite (AT) advaita (DOT) org.uk> wrote: A questioner claims to be quoting from Shankara when he says: "Study of the scriptures is fruitless as long as Brahman has not been experienced. And when Brahman has been experienced, it is useless to read the scriptures." R. S. Mani Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Mail Beta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 maniji: welcome back! nice to see you back in this group ! how was your trip to the punyabhumi of Adi shankara bhagvadapada? hope you had a great time! btw, that was an excellent post specially the last para - i luved every word of it. you write : ( Atma needs no proof for its existence. It is self evident. Take this example. One sees with one's eyes, but one cannot see one's eyes. Everything is seen by the non-seen eyes; hence every seeing is proof of non-seen eyes.) Yes - "divya or prajna chakshu" it is called! Sunderji quoted an important verse from Brihadaranyaka upanishad in this context not too long ago IV-iii-6: When the sun and the moon have both set, the fire has gone out, and speech has stopped, Yajnavalkya, what exactly serves as the light for a man ?' `The self serves as his light. It is through the light of the self that he sits, goes out, works and returns.' `It is just so, Yajnavalkya'. He went on to add Two famous saints who became blind in infancy, Surdas and Gulabji Maharaj, had the gift of the 'divya or prajna chakshu' that outshone the learning of scholars. thank you, maniji for this timely reminder " Vedanta does not reveal any experience of Atma, but reveals the freedom of Atma from all attributes." ( Hence, Shankara says, `I meditate upon the Atma, which is non- dual, which is ever experienced and which is free from all attributes'. He describes it as the light of lights (devadevam) which illumines the luminous object itself.") Yes! may i also add verses from adi shankara bhagvadapada's 'atma bhodha'? verse 61 Realize That to be the Source by whose light shine the sun and the other luminous orbs, which cannot be illuminated by their own light, and by whose light all this Universe shines. and, verse 66 Freed from all impurities by being heated in the Wisdom Fire which has been kindled by Hearing, Reflecting, and Meditating, the individual shines of itself like purified gold. What we need is the eye of wisdom and a discriminating intellect and a mind free of all traces of egoism AND ALL THIS IS POSSIBLE ONLY WITH THE HELP OF A 'NAYANA' DIKSHA OR A 'SPARSHA' DIKSHA FROM A REALIZED SADGURU! AUM GURUBYO NAMAHA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 Thanks to Dhyanasaraswati and Ramachander for responding on this one (I haven't seen if other members have commented since the digest has not yet arrived). I have worded my response on this topic as follows: "The previous paragraph quotes a questioner as 'relaying a quote attributed to Shankara': "Study of the scriptures is fruitless as long as Brahman has not been experienced. And when Brahman has been experienced, it is useless to read the scriptures." This quotation is from the vivekachUDAmaNi (verse 59), which may have been written by Shankara (though this is disputed by many). However, it highlights the danger of taking a quotation out of context. Verse 61 clarifies this statement: "Except for the medicine of the knowledge of God, what use are Vedas, scriptures, mantras and such medicines when you have been bitten by the snake of ignorance?" And, later still in the same work (verse 281) the author says: "Recognising yourself as the self of everything by the authority of scripture, by reasoning and by personal experience, see to the removal of all ideas of additions to your true self whenever they manifest themselves." "The way that this should be interpreted is that the scriptures alone are unlikely to be of any help when you are totally identified with ideas of separation and suffering (and especially if your teachers are telling you that reading them is a waste of time anyway!). What is needed is basic preparation of the mind (as specified by Shankara) followed by study, reflection and meditation (shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana) on the scriptures and unfolding of their meaning by a realised teacher who is well-versed in the scriptures (a shrotriya)." If anyone disagrees with this or thinks I have omitted some important element, please let me know. Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 "The previous paragraph quotes a questioner as 'relaying a quote attributed to Shankara': "Study of the scriptures is fruitless as long as Brahman has not been experienced. And when Brahman has been experienced, it is useless to read the scriptures." This quotation is from the vivekachUDAmaNi (verse 59), which may have been written by Shankara (though this is disputed by many). However, it highlights the danger of taking a quotation out of context. I would like to present my views on this. Viveka chUDAmani is not a text for beginners. Well a person is given by the srotriya brahmanishta teacher to study this text after he has gone through the tatva odha Atma bodha and some upanishads . When the basic theme and the essence of Vedanta is not understood by a student and he or she begins to analyse the above verse his or her interpretation will be dangerous. Quotiong from Kathopanishad I - II - 5 avidyAmantare varta mAnAh Svayam dhIrAh panditam manya mAnAh dandramyamANAh pariyanti mUDAH andhenaiva nIyamAnA yathAndhAh. living in the middle of ignorance and deeming themselves intellegent and eclightened, the ignorant go round and round staggering in crooked paths, like the blind led by the blind. This verse I often keep reminding myself, for mananam. om namo narayanaya Lakshmi Muthuswamy Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 >"dhyanasaraswati" <dhyanasaraswati > >advaitin >> >In the ultimate analysis, it is direct experience that counts ! Real >knowledge is brahma jnana alone all other knowledge including >sciptural knowledge is only a means to the end ! Dhyanasaraswatiji - PraNAms. If I may say so, in the ultimate analysis, it is not the direct experience but firm abidance in the knowledge that I am that Brahman. aham brahmaasmi. It is the experiencer rather than experience itelf. Haari OM! Sadananda _______________ Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 Namaste Maniji, "How long the study should continue? " I think this must be a common burning question in the heart of every Vedanta student. Who, when, where and how to decide and draw the line saying this is it for studies? Isvara only knows. This is my conclusion after see Swami Paramarthaji working with his pile of books, every time I visit him. On "Brahman experience" there is an interesting dialogue between Swami Dayanandaji and Andrew Cohen at Anaikatty in 1988. This link has published the dialogue. Its worth reading. http://www.wie.org/j14/dayananda.asp om namo narayanaya Lakshmi Muthuswamy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 sadaji : how can i even dare to argue with a 'seasoned' vedantin like you ? i agree ! may i quote verse 41 of Adi shankara's Atma bhodha ? 41. In the Atman there is no distinction such as knower, knowledge, and the object of knowledge, for the Atman is of the very nature of bliss and shines of Itself alone. therefore, there is no experiencer, nothing to be experienced !WHO IS THERE TO EXPERIENCE AND WHAT IS THERE TO BE EXPERIENCED AT THE DAWN OF REALIZATION OF BRAHMA-JNANA ? ON ANOTHER NOTE, ANOTHER VERSE IN VIVEKA CHUDAMANI SAYS ' Reality can be experienced only with the eye of understanding, not just by a scholar. What the moon is like must be seen with one's own eyes. How can others do it for you? SO, till a king defeats all his enemies , he cannot clain he is the king ! so until and unless , i defeat and conquer all my vrittis , how can i even say ' i am brahmasmi' ? even vishwamitra had to conquer his 'ahamkara' before he was pronouned 'brahmarishi by Sage vasishta! sadaji, i amk waiting eagerly to hear your discourse on 'gita navaneetham' at the Durga temple although it is a good 2 hours drive away from where i live ! that is one direct experience i would like to have hearing you speak in person! smile! with warmest regards ps my third and last post for the day advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda wrote: > > > > > >"dhyanasaraswati" <dhyanasaraswati > >advaitin > >> > >In the ultimate analysis, it is direct experience that counts ! Real > >knowledge is brahma jnana alone all other knowledge including > >sciptural knowledge is only a means to the end ! > > Dhyanasaraswatiji - PraNAms. > > If I may say so, in the ultimate analysis, it is not the direct experience > but firm abidance in the knowledge that I am that Brahman. aham brahmaasmi. > It is the experiencer rather than experience itelf. > Haari OM! > Sadananda > > _______________ > Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 praNaama: Well said Sandananda-Ji "It is the firm abidance in the knowledge that I am that Brahman "aham brahmaasmi." I think if we understand this correctly on the vyavaharika level also makes lot more sense and may be that was the spirit "aacharya may have affirmed that statement of "aham brahmaasmi" Let us look at some of the implications on a social level: When I say, I am part of this organization I automatically affirm that the goals of that organization are not separate from mine. That why clever capitalistic society introduced the concept of "profit sharing plans" in order to reduce the wastage and improve the bottom line. On the top of this if there is also some ownership then each and every individual strives to make the final goal a success. Now let us apply this principle of ownership to the statement "aham brahmaasmi". where the server, the service as well as the enjoy-er of the service is same (i.e. you yourself). Thus the vested interests automatically prompt the individual to do the best and even go beyond the norms. We can apply this scenario to the unity of family unit, or a village or a society where each and every member has a one common goal to "improve the current standards" and every one take the responsibility for their actions. This will automatically improve the standards of the society and the place where they live. No one will dump the garbage onto the streets because keeping the the streets clean will also be their own responsibility. IMHO - Remaining attached to artificial limits may have done more damage to our culture. sayanaachaarya gives the veda-laxaNa as follows: iShTapraaptyaniShTaparihaarayoralaukikamupaayaM yo grantho vedayati sa vedaH || Meaning - A book that shows the method for obtaining the desired and helps avoid evil, undesired things should be called veda. bhaTTabhaskara in his taittiriiya saMhitaa bhaaShya says: puurva bhagavataa vyaasena jagadupakaaraarthamekiibhuuyasthitaa vedaavyastaaHshaakhaashca paricchhinnaaH | Meaning - vyaasa divided the original one veda into many for the benefit of mankind. bhartR^ihari also expresses similar thoughts in the opening shloka of vakyapadi. Various fractions between R^igvedi, yajurvedi and .... etc and then that being multiplied by shiva, vaiShNava ........... etc is all well documented. All this is because all of them are attached to what little they have learned and they are looking through someone else glasses. It is even academic for me ask a question when the prescription form two individuals will never match for both eyes. Therefore, is it up to the individual to learn, digest and them then act accordingly like a water lily that despite of being in water, water cannot attach to it. Just my $0.02 hari OM tat sat Dr. Yadu advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda wrote: > >"dhyanasaraswati" <dhyanasaraswati > >> > >In the ultimate analysis, it is direct experience that counts ! Real > >knowledge is brahma jnana alone all other knowledge including > >sciptural knowledge is only a means to the end ! > > Dhyanasaraswatiji - PraNAms. > > If I may say so, in the ultimate analysis, it is not the direct experience > but firm abidance in the knowledge that I am that Brahman. aham brahmaasmi. It is the experiencer rather than experience itelf. > Haari OM! > Sadananda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Namaskarams to all. dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati > wrote: SO, till a king defeats all his enemies , he cannot clain he is the king ! so until and unless , i defeat and conquer all my vrittis , how can i even say ' i am brahmasmi' ? even vishwamitra had to conquer his 'ahamkara' before he was pronouned 'brahmarishi by Sage vasishta! Respected Dhyanasaraswatiji, You have stated: "so until and unless , i defeat and conquer all my vrittis , how can i even say ' i am brahmasmi' ?" Let us investigate into " my vrittis". Are the vrittis owned by you? Have you produced these vrittis to own them? What is the source of vrittis? Sri Shankara says in Upadeshasahasri : yEnAtmanA vilIyanta udBavanti ca vRttayaH | nityAvagatayE tasmai namO dhIpratyayAtmanE || --- Chapter 18 verse 1. Mundaka upanishad states; EtasmAjjayatE praNO manaH sarvEndriyANi ca | 2-1-3 From the above it is evident that the vrittis proceed from Atman. Then how can the entity 'i' conquer all vrittis? Actually the entity ' i ' is itself a vritti. Secondly is there an ' i ' separate from the vritti? I request you to examine this within yourself. When there is one vritti there cannot be a second vritti at the same time because there can be only one vritti at a time. Such being the fact , is it ever possible for the entity ' i ' to conquer all the vrittis"? Please investigate? So I think that the right understanding is " I am the Supreme Light illumining all the vrittis which are none other than Myself". Appearance and disappearance of vrittis are an impersonal activity of the Divine Reality. I may please be corrected if there are any errors. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" wrote: > > > > > >"dhyanasaraswati" > >advaitin > >> > >In the ultimate analysis, it is direct experience that counts ! Real > >knowledge is brahma jnana alone all other knowledge including > >sciptural knowledge is only a means to the end ! > > Dhyanasaraswatiji - PraNAms. > > If I may say so, in the ultimate analysis, it is not the direct experience > but firm abidance in the knowledge that I am that Brahman. aham brahmaasmi. > It is the experiencer rather than experience itelf. > Haari OM! > Sadananda > > _______________ > Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Namaste Sri Yaduji, Your post: <<<Now let us apply this principle of ownership to the statement "aham brahmaasmi". where the server, the service as well as the enjoy-er of the service is same (i.e. you yourself). Thus the vested interests automatically prompt the individual to do the best and even go beyond the norms>>>>> I remember, Swami Chinmayanandaji used to mention “With this Knowledge, a Doctor will be a good doctor, an accountant will be a good accountant, a hindu will be a good hindu, a muslim will be a good muslim and a Christian will be a good Christian” Warm regards Mani R. S. Mani Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail Beta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Dr. yduji Namaskaram, "Now let us apply this principle of ownership to the statement "aham brahmaasmi". where the server, the service as well as the enjoy-er of the service is same (i.e. you yourself). Thus the vested interests automatically prompt the individual to do the best and even go beyond the norms. We can apply this scenario to the unity of family unit, or a village or a society where each and every member has a one common goal to "improve the current standards" and every one take the responsibility for their actions. This will automatically improve the standards of the society and the place where they live. No one will dump the garbage onto the streets because keeping the the streets clean will also be their own responsibility." While reading this para, the coversation of Yajnavalkya with his wife Maitreyi came to my mind. Lets say improving the standard of the lot of peoeple and the society is my desire. Any desire is termed as' kAma; now the question is, is kAma for its own sake? Is it for the sake of pleasure? You go for it just because you go for it. In other words it is nothing more than a fancy. Are artha and kAma which I am seeking in life, are they for their own sake or are they for myself? The VedAs say that every object of my desire is for my sake alone - Atmanastu kAmAya sarvam priyam bhavati. Br. Up. 4 - 5- 6. sa ho vAca, na vA are patyuh kAmAya patih priyo bhavati, Atmanastu kAmAya patih priyo bhavati. Yajnavalkya said, 'verily the husnband is dear to the wife not for the sake of the husband, but it is for her own sake that he is dear. na vA are jAyAyai kAmAya jAyA priyA bhavati, Atmnanstu kAmAya jAyA priyA bhavati verily the wife is dear to the husband not for the sake of the wife, my dear, but for his own sake that she is dear. verily sons are dear to the parents not for the sake of the sons but for the sake of parents they are dear. Verily wealth is dear not for the sake of wealth, but it is for ones own sake that it is dear. verily animals are dear not for the sake of animals, but it is for ones own sake they are dear. verily the brAhmaNa is dear not for the sake of BrAhmaNa but for ones own sake. Verily the kshatriya is dear not for the sake of kshatriya but it is for ones own sake that it is dear. verily worlds are dear not for the sake of worlds but for ones own sake that the worlds are dear. Verily Gods are dear not for the sake of Gods but for ones own sake that Gods are dear. verily the Vedas are dear not for the sake of Vedas but for ones own sake that the Vedas are dear. Verily beings are dear not for the sake of beings but my dear, beings are dear for ones own sake. na vA arE sarvasya kAmAya sarvam priyam bhavati, Amanastu kAmAya sarvam priyam bhavati. Verily all are dear not for the sake of all but for ones own sake that all are dear. Atma vA arE drashtavyah, :- srotavyah, mantavyah nididhyAsitavyah Maitreyi; Atmani khalvare drshthe srute, mate vijnAte idam sarvam viditam. The self my dear MaitreyI should verily be realised: should be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon. When only the Self is realised by sravaNam, mananam and nididhyAsanam , all this is known. Therefore, one who desires a particular end, any artha or kAma, does so for his or her own sake. Everything under the sun is covered here. Dr. Yaduji I am not saying that working for the upliftment of society is wrong. Great kings like Janaka and Lord Krishna and many mahAns who have lived and are living have done and are continuing to do so. Our ancestors have atleast not polluted the jagat like we have done with the invention of plastic society. We have great responsibilty on our shoulders to leave this place a better place for the furture geberation than what it was or at least the same when we came in. Still even this is kAma and the statement Atmanastu kAmAya sarvam priyam bhavati applies here too. Woking with this background understanding we work better with strengthened objectivity. om namo narayanaya Lakshmi Muthuswamy Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Mail Beta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir wrote: > > praNaama: > > I think if we understand this correctly on the vyavaharika level > also makes lot more sense and may be that was the spirit "aacharya > may have affirmed that statement of "aham brahmaasmi" > Namaste Dr. Yadu ji, That has been very nicely said. That reminds me of the Acharya's words, 'tvayi mayi cha anyatra eko ViShNuH, vyartham kupyasi mayi asahiShNuH' = It is the same Vishnu that resides in you as well as in me; yet you are angry with me for nothing at all.' There are other passages as well. Like for example, 'aatmavat sarvabhUtaani', 'na hinasti aatmanaa aatmaanam', etc. One of the fallouts of enlightenment is a truly tension-free, all-embracing, life till such a mukta drops off his body. Pranams, subbu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Namaste Subbuji, tvayi mayi cha anyatra eko ViShNuH, vyartham kupyasi mayi asahiShNuH' = It is the same Vishnu that resides in you as well as in me; yet you are angry with me for nothing at all. What a profound statement! I wish my memory records and replays this statement, every time I am angry and upset with people. Especially with servants and at times when the monologue and mental angry chatters go on about people and situations during the japa. I pray the vritti gets replaced by this statement. My Acarya used to say ' the critic in your heart does not allow the teaching of the shAstras to penetrate in you.' om namo narayanaya Lakshmi Muthuswamy Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail Beta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Dear Sri Sreenivasa Murthy ji : Namaste ! you write : (I may please be corrected if there are any errors.) Dear Sir ! The very desire to correct others is also a 'vritti' - would you not agree ? love and regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani wrote: Atma needs no proof for its existence. It is self evident. Take this example. One sees with one's eyes, but one cannot see one's eyes. Everything is seen by the non-seen eyes; hence every seeing is proof of non-seen eyes. namaskaram to all Pujya Sw Dayananda Saraswatiji used to add a few more lines to what is stated above: we see with our eyes. to see, the reflected light has to fall in to our eyes. suppose "I" am sitting in a room, which is lit - all conditions of vision are o.k., then "I" see everything in the room. So "I" know those things are there in the room. Suppose the room is pitch dark, then "I" cannot see anything. Now how does "I" know that "I" am there? This needs no other means of knowledge... something to really think over... namaskaram 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.