Guest guest Posted August 3, 2006 Report Share Posted August 3, 2006 Namaste, For quite some time, I have been troubled by a problem with the modern use of Advaita scriptures. As I see it, the problem is this. All forms of scripture, whether written or chanted, are institutional. They are maintained and transmitted by social and cultural institutions, which are externally organized and are thus liable to change and corruption in the world. No such institution can itself pass on non-dual truth. Nor can any forms of scripture that such institutions maintain. So, as non-dual truth is sought and learned, that seeking and learning must inherently be centred on the living individual. The scriptures and the institutions of Advaita themselves acknowledge this. As for example, the Katha Upanishad 4.1: parAnci khAni vyatriNat svayam-bhUs tasmAt parAng pashyati nA 'ntarAtman | kashcid dhIraH pratyag-AtmAnam aikShad Avritta-cakShur amritatvam icchan || [The world that happens of itself has excavated outward holes, through which perception looks outside and does not see the self within. But someone brave, who longs for that which does not die, turns sight back in upon itself. And it is thus that self is seen, returned to self, to its own true reality.] As I interpret this description of advaita enquiry, it essentially requires that a 'dhira' or a 'steadfast individual' reflects with an undefeated courage which persists beyond all compromise. And the reflection searches back into an inner individuality, in search of a living truth that does not die. It is that truth which motivates the search, to go beyond all fearful and slavish dependence upon outward forms and institutions that are sanctioned by external society. Of course, there is a problem that arises here, about what's meant by speaking of an 'individual'. The word is all too often used to mean a 'vyakti' or a 'manifested person'. This usage is inherently confused; because it conflicts with its root meaning, which it still carries essentially. The root of the English 'individual' is the Latin 'individualis', which means 'indivisible'. That is the essential meaning of the word 'individual'. I would suggest that a careful distinction can be useful here. On the one hand, when we speak of someone's 'personality', the emphasis is on the 'persona' -- the outward 'mask' or 'appearance' -- which is made up from a variety of different and changing characteristics. But on the other hand, when we speak of some person's 'individuality', the emphasis is different. The emphasis of meaning thereby shifts away, from an outward personality that is made up by bundling various differences together. In speaking of an 'individual', the shift of meaning is towards an inner unity, which each of us identifies as 'self' -- a 'self' that lives through changing time and thus becomes expressed through differing appearances. That inner self is not a 'vyakti' or a 'manifested person'. It may be more accurately sought as 'avyakta' or 'unmanifest' -- in all the varied manifestations that make up our many personalities, and thereby the entire universe which they display to us. In the end, as Shri Shankara has pointed out, the living individual is identical with all the world's reality. Each is just 'atma' or 'inmost self'. One same, unvarying reality may be investigated in two opposite directions. On the one hand, it may be investigated by reflecting individually within -- in search of the self that knows experience. But on the other hand, it's also approached by expansion of consideration outward -- in search of that 'brahman' or complete 'expanse' which includes all space, all time and all causality in the entire universe. However, Shri Shankara speaks from a traditional society that was quite different from the modern world today. In that society, knowledge was expounded by quotation from the scriptures. Learning was transmitted on the basis of a cultural convention, whereby a set of scriptures was invested with authority. On that basis, arguments were made by referring to the scriptures and explaining what they said. Thus arguments were based on scriptural authority. Faith in the scriptures was used to prove the truth of reasoned argument. In particular, this scriptural reasoning is used by Shri Shankara in his commentaries on the Upanishads, the Brahma-sutras and the Gita. It's for these commentaries that Shri Shankara is famous. And textually, they constitute the large bulk of his work. But does this mean that his reasoning was based essentially or even mainly on accepted scripture, as opposed to the investigation of direct experience as a living individual? I would say no. As an advaitin, Shri Shankara's reason is not based on some conventional belief in any outward form, scriptural or otherwise. All such beliefs are up for question, in advaita enquiry. I would even go so far as to say that Shri Shankara's commentaries are not primarily addressed to advaita sadhakas. They are primarily addressed to pandits and scholars -- in order to establish an advaita system that referred back to the shrutis, as required by the classical conventions of scholastic learning in Hindu society of Shankara's time. My teacher (Shri Atmananda) said often that for sadhakas, Shri Shankara's prakarana works (like Viveka-cudamani) are of more interest. But here, of course, there are many different opinions. Now, in the modern world, rather more than a thousand years have passed since Shri Shankara. Just how much more we don't quite know, but it is clear that society today is very differently organized. In particular, we learn things in a very different way, through modern communications that make information far more freely available. Because of this increased availability, modern students spend less time on committing things to memory. Accordingly, there is more time for an early emphasis on questioning, right from the start of modern education. In classic and medieval systems of learning, students had to focus first upon remembering, and the asking of questions was accordingly delayed till somewhat later on. In modern education, the asking can start earlier, and what memory is needed can be carried through the interest and the understanding that come with the questioning. So, faith in sanctioned forms is less appropriate today, and independent-minded questioning has come to be emphasized. We reason more directly and more individually, with less compulsion to believe in the authority of instituted forms. We are encouraged to keep asking and to find out things for ourselves, rather than believing in the unexamined authority of what we are told. The living individual is now naturally more emphasized, in the modern world, as education spreads and people are encouraged to ask questions for themselves. As I see it, this is a development that has been positively used in the Advaita tradition, as for example by Svami Vivekananda and Shri Ramana Maharshi. But what then of the old shastraic or scholastic learning that makes use of scriptural authority? We inherit many such traditions from which there's much to be learned, even for those who follow different scriptures and for those who don't follow scriptural authority at all. Of course, for such learning to take place, across differing traditions, there has to be a dialogue between those who have rather different kinds of belief in various different scriptures. In particular, in this Advaitin e-group, I find that such a dialogue is quite essential, because our members come from such different cultural backgrounds. I personally don't proceed from faith in any scriptures. For me, no scripture in itself proves anything. What's said in scripture only serves to help raise questions that reflect the mind back to direct experience at the centre of our living individuality. But this is only one of many different views that may be taken towards scriptural authority. It is across such different views that we somehow attempt to communicate, with varying degrees of failure or success. Ananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2006 Report Share Posted August 3, 2006 But does this mean that his reasoning was based essentially or even mainly on accepted scripture, as opposed to the investigation of direct experience as a living individual? praNAms Hare Krishna Shankara bhagavadpAda himself clarifies his position on this issue. In his vEdAnta sUtra bhAshya (1-1-2) shankara clearly says sruti. etc. alone are not the means of knowledge in the case of the enquiry into the nature of brahman (brahma jignAsa). And he continues, shruti etc. & intuition etc. also as the case may be are here the means, for knowledge of brahman is to culminate in intuition and relates to a factual existent entity. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2006 Report Share Posted August 3, 2006 advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood wrote: > > Namaste, > > For quite some time, I have been troubled by a problem with the > modern use of Advaita scriptures. As I see it, the problem is this. > > All forms of scripture, whether written or chanted, are > institutional. They are maintained and transmitted by social and > cultural institutions, which are externally organized and are thus > liable to change and corruption in the world. No such institution > can itself pass on non-dual truth. Nor can any forms of scripture > that such institutions maintain. > > So, as non-dual truth is sought and learned, that seeking and > learning must inherently be centred on the living individual. The > scriptures and the institutions of Advaita themselves acknowledge > this. As for example, the Katha Upanishad 4.1: > > parAnci khAni vyatriNat svayam-bhUs > tasmAt parAng pashyati nA 'ntarAtman | > kashcid dhIraH pratyag-AtmAnam aikShad > Avritta-cakShur amritatvam icchan || > > [The world that happens of itself > has excavated outward holes, > through which perception looks outside > and does not see the self within. > > But someone brave, who longs for that > which does not die, turns sight back in > upon itself. And it is thus > that self is seen, returned to self, > to its own true reality.] > > As I interpret this description of advaita enquiry, it essentially > requires that a 'dhira' or a 'steadfast individual' reflects with an > undefeated courage which persists beyond all compromise. And the > reflection searches back into an inner individuality, in search of a > living truth that does not die. It is that truth which motivates the > search, to go beyond all fearful and slavish dependence upon outward > forms and institutions that are sanctioned by external society. > > Of course, there is a problem that arises here, about what's meant > by speaking of an 'individual'. The word is all too often used to > mean a 'vyakti' or a 'manifested person'. This usage is inherently > confused; because it conflicts with its root meaning, which it still > carries essentially. The root of the English 'individual' is the > Latin 'individualis', which means 'indivisible'. That is the > essential meaning of the word 'individual'. > > I would suggest that a careful distinction can be useful here. On > the one hand, when we speak of someone's 'personality', the emphasis > is on the 'persona' -- the outward 'mask' or 'appearance' -- which > is made up from a variety of different and changing characteristics. > But on the other hand, when we speak of some person's > 'individuality', the emphasis is different. The emphasis of meaning > thereby shifts away, from an outward personality that is made up by > bundling various differences together. > > In speaking of an 'individual', the shift of meaning is towards an > inner unity, which each of us identifies as 'self' -- a 'self' that > lives through changing time and thus becomes expressed through > differing appearances. That inner self is not a 'vyakti' or a > 'manifested person'. It may be more accurately sought as 'avyakta' > or 'unmanifest' -- in all the varied manifestations that make up our > many personalities, and thereby the entire universe which they > display to us. > > In the end, as Shri Shankara has pointed out, the living individual > is identical with all the world's reality. Each is just 'atma' or > 'inmost self'. One same, unvarying reality may be investigated in > two opposite directions. On the one hand, it may be investigated by > reflecting individually within -- in search of the self that knows > experience. But on the other hand, it's also approached by expansion > of consideration outward -- in search of that 'brahman' or complete > 'expanse' which includes all space, all time and all causality in > the entire universe. > > However, Shri Shankara speaks from a traditional society that was > quite different from the modern world today. In that society, > knowledge was expounded by quotation from the scriptures. Learning > was transmitted on the basis of a cultural convention, whereby a set > of scriptures was invested with authority. On that basis, arguments > were made by referring to the scriptures and explaining what they > said. Thus arguments were based on scriptural authority. Faith in > the scriptures was used to prove the truth of reasoned argument. > > In particular, this scriptural reasoning is used by Shri Shankara in > his commentaries on the Upanishads, the Brahma-sutras and the Gita. > It's for these commentaries that Shri Shankara is famous. And > textually, they constitute the large bulk of his work. But does this > mean that his reasoning was based essentially or even mainly on > accepted scripture, as opposed to the investigation of direct > experience as a living individual? > > I would say no. As an advaitin, Shri Shankara's reason is not based > on some conventional belief in any outward form, scriptural or > otherwise. All such beliefs are up for question, in advaita enquiry. > > I would even go so far as to say that Shri Shankara's commentaries > are not primarily addressed to advaita sadhakas. They are primarily > addressed to pandits and scholars -- in order to establish an > advaita system that referred back to the shrutis, as required by the > classical conventions of scholastic learning in Hindu society of > Shankara's time. My teacher (Shri Atmananda) said often that for > sadhakas, Shri Shankara's prakarana works (like Viveka-cudamani) are > of more interest. But here, of course, there are many different > opinions. > > Now, in the modern world, rather more than a thousand years have > passed since Shri Shankara. Just how much more we don't quite know, > but it is clear that society today is very differently organized. In > particular, we learn things in a very different way, through modern > communications that make information far more freely available. > Because of this increased availability, modern students spend less > time on committing things to memory. Accordingly, there is more time > for an early emphasis on questioning, right from the start of modern > education. > > In classic and medieval systems of learning, students had to focus > first upon remembering, and the asking of questions was accordingly > delayed till somewhat later on. In modern education, the asking can > start earlier, and what memory is needed can be carried through the > interest and the understanding that come with the questioning. > > So, faith in sanctioned forms is less appropriate today, and > independent-minded questioning has come to be emphasized. We reason > more directly and more individually, with less compulsion to believe > in the authority of instituted forms. We are encouraged to keep > asking and to find out things for ourselves, rather than believing > in the unexamined authority of what we are told. > > The living individual is now naturally more emphasized, in the > modern world, as education spreads and people are encouraged to ask > questions for themselves. As I see it, this is a development that > has been positively used in the Advaita tradition, as for example by > Svami Vivekananda and Shri Ramana Maharshi. > > But what then of the old shastraic or scholastic learning that makes > use of scriptural authority? We inherit many such traditions from > which there's much to be learned, even for those who follow > different scriptures and for those who don't follow scriptural > authority at all. > > Of course, for such learning to take place, across differing > traditions, there has to be a dialogue between those who have rather > different kinds of belief in various different scriptures. In > particular, in this Advaitin e-group, I find that such a dialogue is > quite essential, because our members come from such different > cultural backgrounds. > > I personally don't proceed from faith in any scriptures. For me, no > scripture in itself proves anything. What's said in scripture only > serves to help raise questions that reflect the mind back to direct > experience at the centre of our living individuality. > > But this is only one of many different views that may be taken > towards scriptural authority. It is across such different views that > we somehow attempt to communicate, with varying degrees of failure > or success. > Namaste, A very critical question in itself indeed! When Gita 16:24 exhorts: tasmaachchhaastraM pramaaNaM te kaaryaakaaryavyavasthitau . GYaatvaa shaastravidhaanokta.n karma kartumihaarhasi .. 16\-24.. 24. Therefore, the scripture is your authority as regards the determination of what is to be done and what is not to be done. After understanding (your) duty as presented by scriptural injunction, you ought to perform (your duty) here. Is there a way to 'universalize' this? If the advaitic moksha is not accepted, what role does dharma play in this life? In fact, how else can dharma be defined? Can reason alone establish this? What is the recourse for those who have no such proclivity? Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood wrote: > But what then of the old shastraic or scholastic learning that makes > use of scriptural authority? We inherit many such traditions from > which there's much to be learned, even for those who follow > different scriptures and for those who don't follow scriptural > authority at all. > > Of course, for such learning to take place, across differing > traditions, there has to be a dialogue between those who have rather > different kinds of belief in various different scriptures. In > particular, in this Advaitin e-group, I find that such a dialogue is > quite essential, because our members come from such different > cultural backgrounds. > > I personally don't proceed from faith in any scriptures. For me, no > scripture in itself proves anything. What's said in scripture only > serves to help raise questions that reflect the mind back to direct > experience at the centre of our living individuality. > > But this is only one of many different views that may be taken > towards scriptural authority. It is across such different views that > we somehow attempt to communicate, with varying degrees of failure > or success. > Namaste, A very critical question in itself indeed! When Gita 16:24 exhorts: tasmaachchhaastraM pramaaNaM te kaaryaakaaryavyavasthitau . GYaatvaa shaastravidhaanokta.n karma kartumihaarhasi .. 16\-24.. 24. Therefore, the scripture is your authority as regards the determination of what is to be done and what is not to be done. After understanding (your) duty as presented by scriptural injunction, you ought to perform (your duty) here. Is there a way to 'universalize' this? If the advaitic moksha is not accepted, what role does dharma play in this life? In fact, how else can dharma be defined? Can reason alone establish this? What is the recourse for those who have no such proclivity? Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 Namaste Ananda-ji My pranams to you as well as your Guruji. "The root of the English 'individual' is the Latin 'individualis', which means 'indivisible'. That is the essential meaning of the word 'individual'." - never occured to me and how appropriate indeed! "It is that truth which motivates the search, to go beyond all fearful and slavish dependence upon outward forms and institutions that are sanctioned by external society." Can Brahman(truth) "motivate the search" - it is poornatvam and nirguna - is it not the jiva who struggles to "dis"cover who he is? "I personally don't proceed from faith in any scriptures. For me, no scripture in itself proves anything. " Any knowledge (pramaa) needs a valid means of knowledge. I am sure you are more wellversed than me with the six accepted pramanas. Of them anupalabdhi and upamana of course do not apply to knowledge of something that is existence itself and nondual. Similairly arthapatti and anumana(including invariable concomitance) would also not be valid means of universal knowledge of the vastu for obvious reasons. That leaves pratyaksha and sabda. Cognition of Brahman as an object is of course never possible and without sabda cognizing it as our own self is similairly not possible. That leaves sabda - the word - which word - the shruti alone. Without shraddha in the shruti as a valid independent and indeed benevolent means of knowledge i do not see how one can attain jnanam. I am reminded by the famous lines from the Kenopanisad as a students response to a "trick" question from his teacher - "I do not think I know It well, nor do I think I do not know It. He among us who comprehends It both as the not-known as well as the known - he comprehends It. He understands it who comprehends it not; he knows It not, who feels he has comprehended it. It is unknown by those who know It; but to the ignorant it is the known!" In my humble opinion the shruti as well as the traditional guru-shishya parampara is still as relevant, nay indispensable, to the gaining of this knowledge. At the same time I understand where you are coming from, and by the way your prose is very enjoyable to read as well! Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 Namaste Ananda Ji I have read your post with interest and I understand what you are trying to convey. I do not know if it is ever possible to understand the profound questions of our life, existence and what all we see happening around us. However we can have great fun using this little toy we have which we call our intellect in trying to understand and make sense of this world. We have this great accumulation of knowledge handed down to us. Unfortunately with good knowledge, prejudices and odd beliefs have also been handed down. So we need to examine these beliefs and check them for correctness. In other words we have to obtain the experience ourselves, first hand. Now regarding beliefs; beliefs in scriptures or an enlightened master. If we believe, we have no need to think, experience or find things out ourselves. It is a big mental full stop. Instead of observing or experimenting, we run to obtain scriptural references. These references might all be true but they have not been experienced or tested first hand by us. Also regarding doubt. I think doubt is good and faith is a mental full stop. A doubt that has been satisfied by logic or experiment has more conviction than unexamined faith in the words of another. I find the following extract from Richard Feynman really wonderful. It is from his book "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out". "What science is, I think, may be something like this: There was on this planet an evolution of life to a stage that there were evolved animals, which are intelligent. I don't mean just human beings, but animals which play and which can learn something from experience--like cats. But at this stage each animal would have to learn from its own experience. They gradually develop, until some animal [primates?] could learn from experience more rapidly and could even learn from another's experience by watching, or one could show the other, or he saw what the other one did. So there came a possibility that all might learn it, but the transmission was inefficient and they would die, and maybe the one who learned it died, too, before he could pass it on to others. The question is: is it possible to learn more rapidly what somebody learned from some accident than the rate at which the thing is being forgotten, either because of bad memory or because of the death of the learner or inventors? So there came a time, perhaps, when for some species [humans?] the rate at which learning was increased, reached such a pitch that suddenly a completely new thing happened: things could be learned by one individual animal, passed on to another, and another fast enough that it was not lost to the race. Thus became possible an accumulation of knowledge of the [human] race. This has been called time-binding. I don't know who first called it this. At any rate, we have here [in this hall] some samples of those animals, sitting here trying to bind one experience to another, each one trying to learn from the other. This phenomenon of having a memory for the [human] race, of having an accumulated knowledge passable from one generation to another, was new in the world -- but it had a disease in it: it was possible to pass on ideas which were not profitable for the race. The [human] race has ideas, but they are not necessarily profitable. So there came a time in which the ideas, although accumulated very slowly, were all accumulations not only of practical and useful things, but great accumulations of all types of prejudices, and strange and odd beliefs. Then a way of avoiding the disease was discovered. This is to doubt that what is being passed from the past is in fact true, and to try to find out ab initio [from the beginning] again from experience what the situation is, rather than trusting the experience of the past in the form in which it is passed down. And that is what science is: the result of the discovery that it is worthwhile rechecking by new direct experience, and not necessarily trusting the [human] race['s] experience from the past. I see it that way. That is my best definition." Regards Hersh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood wrote: > > > Now, in the modern world, rather more than a thousand years have > passed since Shri Shankara. Just how much more we don't quite know, > but it is clear that society today is very differently organized. In > particular, we learn things in a very different way, through modern > communications that make information far more freely available. > Because of this increased availability, modern students spend less > time on committing things to memory. Accordingly, there is more time > for an early emphasis on questioning, right from the start of modern > education. > > In classic and medieval systems of learning, students had to focus > first upon remembering, and the asking of questions was accordingly > delayed till somewhat later on. In modern education, the asking can > start earlier, and what memory is needed can be carried through the > interest and the understanding that come with the questioning. > > So, faith in sanctioned forms is less appropriate today, and > independent-minded questioning has come to be emphasized. We reason > more directly and more individually, with less compulsion to believe > in the authority of instituted forms. We are encouraged to keep > asking and to find out things for ourselves, rather than believing > in the unexamined authority of what we are told. > > The living individual is now naturally more emphasized, in the > modern world, as education spreads and people are encouraged to ask > questions for themselves. As I see it, this is a development that > has been positively used in the Advaita tradition, as for example by > Svami Vivekananda and Shri Ramana Maharshi. > > But what then of the old shastraic or scholastic learning that makes > use of scriptural authority? We inherit many such traditions from > which there's much to be learned, even for those who follow > different scriptures and for those who don't follow scriptural > authority at all. Namaste, Many of the points you have made are quite sound. For example, a Jnani who lived till very recently in Sringeri told me personally: I did not and even now do not have the intellectual equipment for Shankara's commentaries. All that i relied upon was just a few of the prakarana granthas. On the count of the system that existed in the Vedic times, let me point out that even the 'hero' of the Kathopanishad that you have quoted from, Nachiketas, was a very small boy. He had some of the most profound questions on the Self and the kind of dispassion that he displayed is extremely hard to find. Now, is this a case where much time was wasted in the Gurukula by committing the scriptures to rote and postponing true questioning? Again there are several examples in the Vedas and the Puranas. What about Shvetakeu, Jabali and several others who became enlightened very young? What to say of Prahlada and Dhruva? Vedanta has taught and believes that questioning and taking them further to the ultimate limit of Aproksha Atma Sakshaatkara are essentially a long journey spanning several lives. When we see a Ramana Maharishi getting enlightened at 14 years of age and someone else at 18 or 20, the only explanation Vedanta gives is that much of the sadhana has been done in the past lives and now the time is just ready for the fruition and this alone is seen by us. The Gita says 'aneka janma samsiddhaH tato yaati paraam gatim', and 'bahUnAm janmanAm ante jnaanavaan maam prapadyate'. All this shows that the modern times where exposure to so many sources of esoteric knowledge is more easily accessible for even young children will not guarantee the blossoming of the intellect into a Jnani in all or even many cases. Everything depends on samskara and this alone is the touchstone. And samskara is added little by little over several lives as Acharya Shankara points out in the Gita Bhashya. Pranams, subbu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 Namaskaram to all, When our prof VKji wrote that it is better we write what we think we need to write after "some time", i just looked at the "save as draft" section where by now i have 13 of them saved without clicking " send" button. :-)) But then i know i didnt miss anything since what i wrote was written in a better - more understanding way - by so many and replies to their messages have been a learning experience. great SATSANG indeed. I have no words to write for the explanations given by Lakshmiji for the doubt raised by shri Mosesji and then by Profji and again by Ramachandranji... And when i was reading Subbuji's reply, the thought came to my mind and as i went on reading, i could see that Subbuji is explaining exactly the same thing, but in a wonderfully simplified language... Blessed are the souls in here, who write and who read, who ask questions and who give the replies.... Let there be any number of births.....But if this SATSANG continues for generations, thru this itself one will be able to continue the study..... namaskaram subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote: advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood wrote: > > > Vedanta has taught and believes that questioning and taking them further to the ultimate limit of Aproksha Atma Sakshaatkara are essentially a long journey spanning several lives. When we see a Ramana Maharishi getting enlightened at 14 years of age and someone else at 18 or 20, the only explanation Vedanta gives is that much of the sadhana has been done in the past lives and now the time is just ready for the fruition and this alone is seen by us. The Gita says 'aneka janma samsiddhaH tato yaati paraam gatim', and 'bahUnAm janmanAm ante jnaanavaan maam prapadyate'. All this shows that the modern times where exposure to so many sources of esoteric knowledge is more easily accessible for even young children ..... Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 shyam_md <shyam_md > wrote: Namaste Ananda-ji My pranams to you as well as your Guruji. "The root of the English 'individual' is the Latin 'individualis', which means 'indivisible'. That is the essential meaning of the word 'individual'." - never occured to me and how appropriate indeed! From Sankarraman May I point out that J.Krishnamurthy has very much pointed out the etymological meaning of the word individual. The word individual, means indivisible, not broken up, not fragmented, which is the whole. Only the human being, who has gone beyond the collective stream, the collective memory, according to J.K, is a true individual. The true individual contributes to something beyond the stream, being related to the stream only through compassion. In the present consciousness of attachment to the psychological memories, all are only certain personalities, the persona being only a mask and unreal. with warm regards, Sankarraman How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Namaste Shri Sunder Thank you for the Gita quote and the questions in your message #32358 of August 4th. > "Therefore, the scripture is your authority as regards the > determination of what is to be done and what is not to be done. > After understanding (your) duty as presented by scriptural > injunction, you ought to perform (your duty) here." [Gita 16.24] > Is there a way to 'universalize' this? If the advaitic moksha is > not accepted, what role does dharma play in this life? In fact, > how else can dharma be defined? Can reason alone establish this? > What is the recourse for those who have no such proclivity? This question of universalization is a key to the modern use of scripture, so far as I can see. The scriptures address some basic principles that are universally applicable; but these principles are described in languages that depend specifically on particular cultures which change with time and differ from place to place. So, as the Gita points out in the quote above, its only "After understanding" what the scriptures enjoin that they can be applied. In other words, the scriptures have to be interpreted –- in order to get past their culture-specific descriptions, to the universal principles that they address. In the modern world, where cultures meet more freely than before, it often helps to develop common languages in which universal principles are applied. As for example modern physics has been greatly assisted by developing a common language of mathematical description. I would say that something of the same development is currently taking place and is further indicated for advaita enquiry (as also for many other of the old disciplines). But, where modern physics universalizes by making it's language more quantitative and more calculating, advaita takes an opposite approach to universality. That opposite approach is through a qualitative subtlety of language that reflects into its underlying meaning. Both these approaches, the calculating and the reflective, are of course applicable in various different languages and cultures. So it is unnecessary for a modern English speaker to learn Newtonian physics by reading Newton's 'Principia' in Latin. The texts of Newtonian physics have been rewritten in modern English and in many other languages, in a way that makes the subject independent of its historic texts. I would guess that something of the same applies to advaita texts, in some ways even more strongly. Modern physics (very much including Newtonian physics) seeks a restricted universality. It studies a universe that is restricted to be observed through mechanical instruments that are institutionally specified and maintained. The universe of modern physics is defined essentially and restrictedly by external institutions of documented information and mechanical technology. What can't be studied in this way is outside the scope of modern physics. But advaita seeks an ultimate universality that is completely unrestricted. It must be the same for everyone, completely independent of all institutions through which any groups of persons may be organized. So the teaching and the search of advaita must be individual. An individual student must be taught by an individual teacher, to investigate a common truth that is found beyond all differences of personality and world. Certain texts and institutions may be used to convey ideas that are helpful to advaita enquiry; but, in the end, the enquiry cannot be tied down to any such institutions, nor to any texts and ideas that they convey. In fact, it is the other way around. Each such institute or text or idea must stay grounded in advaitic truth, in order to have any use or meaning. For an advaita sadhaka, what matters is the truth that the teacher shows. That's what gives meaning to all words or ideas or texts that may be used. And a genuine teacher will quite naturally speak from truth –- in a way that is suited to a disciple's conditioning, both personal and cultural. I'd say it's thus, through living teaching, that the language of advaita may be universalized. The language grows essentially from each genuine teacher's explanations to a variety of disciples from different cultures. And the growth continues, though of course more fallibly, through each disciple's sadhana, in her or his own language and culture. The older texts do of course remain, for scholarly reference and for those who are inspired by the old ways of sadhana. But one must also expect new texts to keep on retelling the old teachings, in a variety of languages and ways that don't have to depend upon the authority of classical or ancient scriptures. Ananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Namaste Anandaji, Anandaji wrote: "The older texts do of course remain, for scholarly reference and for those who are inspired by the old ways of sadhana." I beg to disagree on this idea. Men/women may come men/women may go but the older texts will ever ever remain whether the scholar refers or a layman refers. There are no old ways of sadhana. SAdhana is a sadhana at any point of time. There is nothing new or old about them. Its in the eyes of the beholder. Example with reference to yoga. There are only two hands. One can either lift them or hang them down. Raising and dropping them down is a sadhana the yoga.This can be done coordinating with breathing or not. For an asthmatic who cannot breathe properly a chant is used while raising the arm or dropping them down. For children , a song can be used to make it interesting. Is rising and dropping the arms new or old, can it be altered in any other way by some new methodology? Similarly all thoses meditataion techniques, is there anything new. Waht is new can be depending on the kalpana shakti of each individual. One will satrt seeing blue light , green light yellow what ever what ever. Other than the basic vibgyor and its shades are there any more that is possible. Other than the Shat chakra mentioned in the scriptures, is there any more new discovery? Lets talk about sAdhana catushtaya sampatti sAdhana in terms of vedanata. Can there be any new sAdhana introduced oither than what is mentioned in the scriptures. kAya shiddhi, vAk shuddhi, mano shuddhi - what ever new tecniques are introduced, my dear sir, they are only 'the same formula of cough syrup ina new bottle' Can there be anything new or more added to all those means and methods taught by Sri Krishna on Atma j~nAna in Bhagavad Gita? Not to menmtion the Upanishads and the Brahma sutras. All these depend on the individual and the adhikaritvam. When the individual has gained adhikAritvam, the shAstras become available to him. arthaspuraNam takes place automatically when the individual is ready. This readiness can be gained with effort, with sAdhana mentioned in the shastras and not otherwise. All the sAdhana of the shAstras will remain the same for ever. No new ways, no old ways. Anandaji wrote "But one must also expect new texts to keep on retelling the old teachings, in a variety of languages and ways that don't have to depend upon the authority of classical or ancient scriptures" Reply - Yes, we need more and more people to learn and make it available to as many people as possible in as many different languages in the world. We have more than 5000 languages in world, as far as my understanding is. There may be many more which I am not aware of. This is welcome, provided, the teachings are in line, with shAstras. But teachings are never old. Teachings can never be new. They are the same. That is the greatness of the teaching. An Acharya who has mastered the scriptures in the Shstra sampradaya, will not teach a word other than what is said in the shAstras. He will stick to every word form the original texts. There will be no spices and no seasoning added to it. shAstra has to be learnt from such a teacher. He is a rarity. Anandaji wrote -"don't have to depend upon the authority of classical or ancient scriptures" I have taken this sentence separately to visualise the results, if a novice/ a new entrant to vedanta, reads this sentence as it is. Sorry sir, this is not acceptable at all. This is not only a personal comment. But any ardent student of the shastras will not accept this statement. The vedanta - advaita study is based only on the authority of these classical or ancient scriptures. Infact the Sanatana Dharma is based on the authority of the ancient scriptures. The heart of every Indian home, the basic structure for the cultural life style, the religious beliefs and discipline, karma and rebirth concepts etc etc - all these have a basic foundation in the authority of the ancient scriptures. I meant to voice this objectively as a student of vedanta and certainly not as a reactive or a defensive reply. om namo narayanaya Lakshmi Muthuswamy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood wrote: > > Namaste Shri Sunder > > For an advaita sadhaka, what matters is the truth that the teacher > shows. That's what gives meaning to all words or ideas or texts that > may be used. And a genuine teacher will quite naturally speak from > truth –- in a way that is suited to a disciple's conditioning, both > personal and cultural. > > I'd say it's thus, through living teaching, that the language of > advaita may be universalized. The language grows essentially from > each genuine teacher's explanations to a variety of disciples from > different cultures. And the growth continues, though of course more > fallibly, through each disciple's sadhana, in her or his own > language and culture. > > Ananda Namaste Sri Anandaji, I agree with you. I wrote the below out in response to your original post on this thread, (but never posted it): After reading both Ananda Wood's and Sunderji's original posts, what strikes me is this. It seems to me that it is very important to have a teacher who knows how to use the Upanishads as a pramana, and without access to a teacher who knows how to do that, I'm not sure how useful the Upanishads are in gaining Self-knowledge, because it appears that their words can be very confusing, and very easily misunderstood. I have heard that the study of the Upanishads was originally an oral tradition meant to be passed from teacher to student, and that they were not meant or intended to be put into books, read, studied, and their meaning interpreted on one's own. Some have said that Swami Dayananda has revived Vedanta as a pramana, and that he has trained many students who know how to use the Upanishads in this way. It seems that with the teachings of Advaita/Vedanta the teacher's ability to use the scriptures as a pramana, a mirror of the student's own experience, is the key to their efficacy. There is something else which I have been told which relates to the Gita verse concerning dharma. (In fact in some ways it is a continuation of it). And I don't know where in the scriptures this verse is to be found, but I have heard that it is there, (and I belive it is in an Upanishad). The verse says that if one does not know what is dharma and what is adharma in a given situation then one should "consult a wise person of one's era." To me both of these understandings point to the importance of having a living teacher, within the tradition, who knows how to use the Upanishads as a means of Knowledge, and who is also capable of understanding what constitutes dharma and adharma in this era. It is said that the promise of the creation is that "when the student is ready the teacher appears." And that this Knowledge will always be available for those who want to know. And so, having faith in that promise, it seems to me that a student who has recognized that no true happiness can be found in samsara will inevitably meet their teacher. Pranams to all, Durga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Namaste Durgaji, "I'm not sure how useful the Upanishads are in gaining Self-knowledge, because it appears that their words can be very confusing, and very easily misunderstood." Upanishads are texts to be studied only for gaining Self- Knolwedge. the subject matter of upanishads is Self-knowledge. The words can be confusing/misunderstood, if one studies on his /or her own, or studied as a college text book or English Litereature or a novel, or for casual time pass reading. It is a serious study all about life and living. One has to study them under the guidance of a teacher belonging to the sampradaya parampara. "Some have said that Swami Dayananda has revived Vedanta as a pramana, and that he has trained many students who know how to use the Upanishads in this way." Yes you are right. Swami Dayanadaji has done commendable work in teaching Vedanta for the last fortyfive years. He has trained teachers, who are teaching all over the world. I am also Swamiji's student. With his blessings, I am also teaching at Chennai. Please visit the website to listen to some of the lectures and also to read the synopsis of his lectures. www.avgsatsang.org Bhagavd Gita Home study course - a set of four books is very recommended for beginners. I am not doing any promotional work, please. I follow other publications also. Swami Krishnananda's woks are available as downloads. He is good. Not tospeak of Chinmayaji's books. Swami Gambhirananadas, translations are a difficult to be understood for a beginner. www.swamikrishnananda.org 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 August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Namaste Shri Sham, In your message #32359 (Aug 4), you asked: > Can Brahman(truth) "motivate the search" - it is poornatvam and > nirguna - is it not the jiva who struggles to "dis"cover who he > is? Yes, clearly it is the jiva or the personality which struggles in the search for truth. But the jiva's struggling is inherently confused by ego, which wrongly identifies the unaffected self with a driven mind and body in the world. The jiva thus searches in confusion, struggling to grasp the truth as if it were a physical or mental object that is found missing and must somehow be possessed. One way out of this confusion is to look for truth as 'ananda' or 'happiness', which shines in the fulfilment of a desired object. In that fulfilment, the desiring mind has attained to unity with an object of desire. The mind is there no longer at odds with what it finds, and it thereby dissolves into a shining non-duality that we call 'happiness'. What sought in duality to make things happen is now found to be at one with happening, so that a shining non-duality of happiness is realized. In the end, it's just that happiness which all desire seeks. It is the basic motivation of all the desires that we feel in our personalities and all the happenings that we observe in the physical and mental world. That motivation isn't an external force which is imposed from anything outside. Instead, it is an inner inspiration that arises quite spontaneously and naturally from within -- as nature manifests appearances, which shine by light of an unaffected consciousness that they express. In the Taittiriya Upanishad 2.7, it is put like this: yad vai tat sukritam, raso vai saH, rasaM hy evAyaM labdhv AnandI bhavati, ko hy evAnyAt kaH prANyAt, yad eSha AkAsha Anando na syAt [it is just this essential savour that is spontaneous and natural. It's only when one reaches this essential savour that one comes to happiness. For what could be alive at all, what could move with energy, if there were not this happiness: here at the background of all space and time, pervading the entire world?] Ananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Ananda Wood <awood (AT) vsnl (DOT) com> wrote: > For an advaita sadhaka, what matters is the truth that the teacher shows. That's what gives meaning to all words or ideas or texts that may be used. And a genuine teacher will quite naturally speak from truth –- in a way that is suited to a disciple's conditioning, both personal and cultural. I'd say it's thus, through living teaching, that the language of advaita may be universalized. The language grows essentially from each genuine teacher's explanations to a variety of disciples from different cultures. And the growth continues, though of course more fallibly, through each disciple's sadhana, in her or his own language and culture. The older texts do of course remain, for scholarly reference and for those who are inspired by the old ways of sadhana. But one must also expect new texts to keep on retelling the old teachings, in a variety of languages and ways that don't have to depend upon the authority of classical or ancient scriptures. From Sankarraman That certain abstruse aspects of the quest, found in the old scriptures, are not relevant to the modern world, has been clealy brought about it in the teachings of Bhaghavan Ramana, who dissuades people very much from the scholarly pursuits. The wisdom that the sage comes upon is something beyond verbalisation. The word is not the thing. Though the ultimate reality taught in the scriptures and realised by the sage are one and the same, one's innermost being, the indubitable atman, the words of the sage come like the fresh waters of truth, and are of more benefit than the abstruse writings of the traditional scriptures which can appeal only to the intellect of the pundits. For example, one finds that the text Viveka-chudamani is more direct and intuitive than the commentaries which are very logical and scholarly. The great acharya himslef denounces too much attachment to the scriptures as sasthra vasana fit to be given up. Bhaghavan says that atleast the worldy man has one samsara, whereas the scholar courts many. One has to go beyond the scriptures. with respectful regards, Sankarraman .. Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Ananda Wood <awood (AT) vsnl (DOT) com> wrote: Yes, clearly it is the jiva or the personality which struggles in the search for truth. But the jiva's struggling is inherently confused by ego, which wrongly identifies the unaffected self with a driven mind and body in the world. The jiva thus searches in confusion, struggling to grasp the truth as if it were a physical or mental object that is found missing and must somehow be possessed. [it is just this essential savour that is spontaneous and natural. It's only when one reaches this essential savour that one comes to happiness. For what could be alive at all, what could move with energy, if there were not this happiness: here at the background of all space and time, pervading the entire world?] From Sankarraman The happiness one comes upon by the extinction of the knower-known relationship in the acquisition of the desired object, and thereby finding the unicity of the self, is an unconscious one. One never realizes that the happiness does not flow from the object, but is inherent in the Self, in spite of the highest form of such a felicity being available in deep-sleep in the relative state of consciousness. The jiva's direction is always in time and space, the objective side of existence. The individual thinks that there is some happiness in an object out there, but the happiness is very spasmodic giving place to misery. The next step, the removal of misery, is also on the objective side. First, a false object is created; then an attempt to be free from one's own creation, which is also in the wrong direction, is made. Both seeking happiness and attempting to be free from misery presuppose the existence of a separate self capable of exercising free-will. The ananda of the Upanishads, quoted by you, is it come by through the activities of the mind? with respectful regards, Sankarraman Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail Beta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Pranams > > Yes, clearly it is the jiva or the personality which struggles in > the search for truth. I agree with everything you say in this post.. Except that it is not Brahman which "motivates" the truth, but as you say the jiva which struggles. Brahman is. It can perform no action. The jiva as it were needs to discover he is the whole and nondifferent from Brahman the vastu and recognize as it were that he is limitless and that is his motivation. Hari Om Shyam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 advaitin, "Durga" <durgaji108 wrote: >> Namaste Sri Anandaji, > > I agree with you. I wrote the below out in response > to your original post on this thread, (but never > posted it): > > After reading both Ananda Wood's and Sunderji's > original posts, what strikes me is this. It seems to me > that it is very important to have a teacher who > knows how to use the Upanishads as a pramana, > and without access to a teacher who knows how to do > that, I'm not sure how useful the Upanishads are > in gaining Self-knowledge, because it appears > that their words can be very confusing, and very > easily misunderstood. Namaste Madam, The above is very well said. The Upanishad teaches that one has to essentially approach a Guru who is a shrotriya, versed in the scriptures and Brahmanishtha, established in the experiential knowledge of Brahman, for obtaining this knowledge. Acharya Shankara says one should never venture in the enquiry of the Atman even though one is versed in the scriptures. Another upanishadic mantra says: 'praapya varaan nibodhata' = seek out the truly great persons and get to know the Truth'. It is of utmost importance that one studies under a Guru. It is of equal importance that one does not contradict or quarrel with the Guru. The Shanti paatha 'maa vidvishaavahaiH' is a prayer to the Lord to protect the Guru-shshya duo from animosity. It is unupanishadic to quarrel with the Guru and leave the tradition in which one is initiated and go away as a rebel. You have said: >> There is something else which I have been told > which relates to the Gita verse concerning dharma. > (In fact in some ways it is a continuation of it). > And I don't know where in the scriptures this verse > is to be found, but I have heard that it is there, > (and I belive it is in an Upanishad). The > verse says that if one does not know what > is dharma and what is adharma in a given situation > then one should "consult a wise person of one's > era." > > To me both of these understandings point to the > importance of having a living teacher, within > the tradition, who knows how to use the Upanishads > as a means of Knowledge, and who is also capable of > understanding what constitutes dharma and adharma in > this era. > > It is said that the promise of the creation is > that "when the student is ready the teacher > appears." And that this Knowledge will always > be available for those who want to know. > > And so, having faith in that promise, it seems > to me that a student who has recognized that > no true happiness can be found in samsara will > inevitably meet their teacher. > > Pranams to all, > Durga Reply: The upanishadic teaching you are referring to is in the Taittiriya Upanishad, shiikshaavalli XI: 'Now if to thee a doubt as to a deed, or a doubt as to conduct, should occur, as the brahmanas there - who are thoughtful, zealous, well-versed, not hard (at heart), desirous of Dharma - would act in such matters, so there shall thou act. (pl. read the Shankara bhashya for this.) Pranams, subbu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v wrote: Acharya Shankara > says one should never venture in the enquiry of the Atman even though > one is versed in the scriptures. A correction: The above should read: Acharya Shankara says one should never venture into the enquiry of the Atman all by oneself (i.e. without the aid of a Guru)........ Pranams, subbu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Namaste Shrimati Durga, >From your message #32395 of 6th August, I seem to have spoken of the shastras in a way that has caused offence. Please allow me to apologize for this, and to try clarifying what I meant to say. I had no intention of denying that the shastras are grounded in a timeless truth, where words like 'old' and 'new' do not apply. You are of course quite right in pointing to that essential timelessness which underlies the living use of shastras we inherit from the past. Nor did I mean that the shastras now need tinkering, like a tailor altering a dress, to make them fit conveniently with changing circumstance. Of course I agree with you that where the shastras are used, they must faithfully be followed and interpreted, with the utmost care and accuracy. What I meant instead is that teaching and learning cannot ever be a mechanical transmission of outward form -- no matter whether it is reading some script that has been written down nor whether it is hearing and reciting some form that has been spoken out. All genuine teaching and learning must take place through a reflection back from outward form, into a living depth of individuality that's shared in common by the teacher and the students or disciples. That is the depth where truth is timeless and unvarying. It's there that teaching and learning stay alive, as they are expressed in a variety of forms which appear to transmit them outwardly. What forms are used, whether scriptural or not, is a matter for the teacher to decide, in respect to each individual student or disciple. In an earlier post ("On Bhagavan Ramana", message #32372 of Aug 4), you spoke movingly about your grandparents and uncles and father -- as having imbibed the teachings of Ramana in their lives, without too much talk and without much study of "vedanta or the scriptures". This imbibing into a disciple's own life is the kind of learning that I meant to suggest, though evidently I've gone rather wrong in putting the suggestion across. Shrimati Durga has very kindly said it rather better, in message #32396 of 7th August, where she emphasizes the importance of a living teacher. Ananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Namaste Shrimati Lakshmi and Shrimati Durga, My recent message #32411 has mistakenly addressed Shrimati Durga instead of Shrimati Lakshmi. Very sorry about the mix-up. Ananda 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.