Guest guest Posted September 9, 2006 Report Share Posted September 9, 2006 A disciple approached a knower of Prashthana Traya bhasyas D: Guruji, What is the path? A: The only valid path is in Shankara's Prashthana Traya bhasyas D: I have not read these. However, I have read life stories of some recent knower's of Truth such as Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana. They seem to have spent quite a bit of time in Meditation/Samadhi, is it not? A: Samadhi is not a valid means according to my reading of the bhasyas D: They have mentioned Samadhi in various discussions A: Samadhi is hardly mentioned in the principal Upanishads. So it is not a valid means D: But a number of great ones such as Swami Vidyaranya have pointed out that the Gita, Upanishads describe Samadhi even though the word may not be used much A: Swami Vidyaranya came after Shankara and by that time the Truth was already diluted D: But Shankara's own guru Sri Gaudapada says Samadhi is a valid means in His Mandukya Karika A: It may appear so. But Sri Gaudapada was talking about a different meditation/Samadhi D: But Swami Vidyaranya and others indicate that it is the same – it is not any different A: Maybe so. But Swami Vidyaranya came after Shankara and by that time the Truth was already diluted D: Surely there must have been Knowers of Truth before Shankara too A: It is not possible. Because, those born before Shankara never read Prashthana Traya bhasyas. D: What about Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana, Guruji A: They came after Shankara and don't know the Prasthana Traya as it is supposed to be known D: So you are saying you are the only one who knows the path A: yes D: Isn't this like saying Jesus is the only one knows the path A: yes D: Thank you for showing the path, Guruji The disciple, thoroughly satisfied with the clear path shown, promptly renounced.. from Hinduism, converted to Christianity and lived happily ever after Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2006 Report Share Posted September 10, 2006 Namaste Sundar Rajan-ji. I am getting your message. But, isn't it a little cruel? Let us embrace all points of view and forge ahead without the fear of being forcibly converted. Acharya Shankara, Bh. Ramana Maharshi and ShrI Ramakrishna Paramahasa - they are all beacons of light beckoning us the right way through this ocean of samsAra. One who knows that light only guides will be definitely rightly guided by them. For such a one, these Masters are never contradictory. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ____________________ advaitin, "Sundar Rajan" <avsundarrajan wrote: > > A disciple approached a knower of Prashthana Traya bhasyas ........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2006 Report Share Posted September 10, 2006 H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to all. advaitin, "Sundar Rajan" <avsundarrajan wrote: > > <A disciple approached a knower of Prashthana Traya bhasyas> A fictious dialogue , held between two fictious characters, conceived by an ignorant person, should never find place in this group. It is an insult to the timehonoured Vedantic Tradition and to Sri Sankara himself who has codified the whole thought position of Upanishads in such a brilliant and precise way. One who has really understood the Bhashyas will never talk in such a stupid fashion. Such kind of postings hurt the feelings of seekers of truth.As one who has studied bhashyas for over 40 years, I respect and venerate such great spiritual giants like Sri Ramana, Sri Ramakrishnaparamahamsa, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Sri Atmananda (Sri Krishna Menon)etc. I am writing this letter with deep anguish and sorrow. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy > D: Guruji, What is the path? > A: The only valid path is in Shankara's Prashthana Traya bhasyas > > D: I have not read these. However, I have read life stories of some > recent knower's of Truth such as Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana. > They seem to have spent quite a bit of time in Meditation/Samadhi, > is it not? > A: Samadhi is not a valid means according to my reading of the > bhasyas > > D: They have mentioned Samadhi in various discussions > A: Samadhi is hardly mentioned in the principal Upanishads. So it is > not a valid means > > D: But a number of great ones such as Swami Vidyaranya have pointed > out that the Gita, Upanishads describe Samadhi even though the word > may not be used much > A: Swami Vidyaranya came after Shankara and by that time the Truth > was already diluted > > D: But Shankara's own guru Sri Gaudapada says Samadhi is a valid > means in His Mandukya Karika > A: It may appear so. But Sri Gaudapada was talking about a different > meditation/Samadhi > > D: But Swami Vidyaranya and others indicate that it is the same – it > is not any different > A: Maybe so. But Swami Vidyaranya came after Shankara and by that > time the Truth was already diluted > > D: Surely there must have been Knowers of Truth before Shankara too > A: It is not possible. Because, those born before Shankara never > read Prashthana Traya bhasyas. > > D: What about Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana, Guruji > A: They came after Shankara and don't know the Prasthana Traya as it > is supposed to be known > > D: So you are saying you are the only one who knows the path > A: yes > > D: Isn't this like saying Jesus is the only one knows the path > A: yes > > D: Thank you for showing the path, Guruji > > The disciple, thoroughly satisfied with the clear path shown, > promptly renounced.. from Hinduism, converted to Christianity and > lived happily ever after > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2006 Report Share Posted September 10, 2006 Namaste Nair-ji This was supposed to be a humorous, light-hearted message. It appears this is not the case, some members have seen this in a different light and has offended some members. I apologise if this is the case and I request the moderators to delete/withdraw this message. regards Sundar Rajan advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair wrote: > > Namaste Sundar Rajan-ji. > > I am getting your message. But, isn't it a little cruel? Let us > embrace all points of view and forge ahead without the fear of being > forcibly converted. Acharya Shankara, Bh. Ramana Maharshi and ShrI > Ramakrishna Paramahasa - they are all beacons of light beckoning us > the right way through this ocean of samsAra. One who knows that light > only guides will be definitely rightly guided by them. For such a > one, these Masters are never contradictory. > > PraNAms. > > Madathil Nair > > ____________________ > > advaitin, "Sundar Rajan" <avsundarrajan@> > wrote: > > > > A disciple approached a knower of Prashthana Traya bhasyas > ....... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2006 Report Share Posted September 10, 2006 Namaste Rameshji. Once I asked Sw.Dayanandaji if this knowledge (advaitic) exists elsewhere in the world. His answer was a firm affirmative. He said it does in many cultures but what is found lacking is our unique methodology for realizing it. It would therefore be better for us to think the Jungian way and explain that this knowledge and methodlogy are always there in the collective unconscious. Right persons at the right time are blessed to tap into it. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ________________ advaitin, "Ramesh Krishnamurthy" <rkmurthy wrote: > The advaitic tradition is actually very "broad-minded". For example, > suppose you ask - "there was a medieval European named Eckhart who > seems to have had a non-dual realization. How is it possible given > that, in all probability, he would have had no access to the vedAntic > texts?" > > An advaitin would simply answer - Eckhart must have studied the texts > in one of his previous lives. > > So Eckhart can have his enlightenment and the Sruti-based tradition > retains its distinctiveness! Of course this is one possible > interpretation; there can be others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2006 Report Share Posted September 10, 2006 Namaste Sundar Rajan-ji. Your apology and explanation that you meant your post to be humorous are more than enough. I could sense the humour though it was slightly acidic. I therefore personally feel that there is no need to delete the post considering also the thoughtful comments it has elicited from Rameshji. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ________________ advaitin, "Sundar Rajan" <avsundarrajan wrote: > This was supposed to be a humorous, light-hearted message. It > appears this is not the case, some members have seen this in a > different light and has offended some members. I apologise if this > is the case and I request the moderators to delete/withdraw this > message. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2006 Report Share Posted September 10, 2006 Sri Sundar Rajan-ji's post has evoked some response. For those of us who know Sundar-ji through the list, he is a very pure and dedicated soul on the spiritual path and so harsh judgments are not necessary. Probably most of us have said things which were taken in ways not intended and about which we had second thoughts. Such debates, on the valid means of Self-Realization, the role of samadhi and specifically nirvikalpa samadhi, and whether Shankra is actually the author of Vivekachudamani and other works, etc., occur at regular intervals on this list. While such discussions have somewhat of a polarizing effect on the list members, these also provide opportunities for devotees and aspirants and teachers with powerful intellects and the knowledge of advaitic literature and our traditions to frame their understanding for the rest of the members. So in that sense, there is a positive outcome as well. When the best arguments are made by both sides the distinctions in terms of arriving at the ultimate truth get very thin. The Advaitic Truth is that Jiva is Brahman. What is needed is to remove the ignorance. Ignorance is removed by meditation on the truths given to us in the Upanishads, specifically the mahavakyas. Because the true meaning of mahavakyas is not crystal clear to us upon hearing them, we need to purify our mind in various ways and make it receptive. Sadhana is the process by which the mind becomes fits to receive the truth. The ways of sadhana naturally will differ from one individual to another depending on tendencies and samaskaras. I think the difference here is not about what the ultimate truth is but what the proper sadhana is. What is the proper sadhana? The answer to that question is very simple. That sadhana is proper which will make us fit for receiving the truth. We need not judge what sadhana is proper for others but should be satisfied if the means we are following lead to Self-Realization. Atman Is Brahman. That is the knowledge that removes ignorance. The polarization starts to come when devotees and aspirants of somewhat different orientations perceive a subtle sense of disrespect for their path and their revered teachers. My observation is that this feeling intensifies when either implicitly or explicitly some members claim that their understanding of advaita and Shankra's teaching is more "pure" because they do not accept certain works attributed to Shankra. Further, the Bhagavad Gita is considered a sacred scripture by most Hindus and at a practical level people look at it for guidance in life and in sadhana. Because means of sadhana are given in Gita by Bhagavan to Arjuna to attain the goal of life, these are viewed as perfectly fine by most people and are accepted as part of the tradition. Love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2006 Report Share Posted September 11, 2006 It is an insult to the timehonoured Vedantic Tradition and to Sri Sankara himself who has codified the whole thought position of Upanishads in such a brilliant and precise way. One who has really understood the Bhashyas will never talk in such a stupid fashion. . praNAms Hare Krishna I dont think people who follow SHANKARA TRADITION will get offened by hearing these jokers' dialogues (fictious anyway:-)) when the idiocy is conspicuous in this socalled jokers' dialogue (fictious anyway:-)) what is the need for SHANKARA FOLLOWERS to get hurt....they can only laugh out loudly at the height of this stupidity...& appreciate the *innovative* & *creative* ideas of the *director* behind these fictious characters...Even Sri Sundar prabhuji, who is the *man* behind the show here, would have laughed himself after reading his own *creative work* ....is it not Sundar prabhuji:-)) I admire your sense of humour prabhuji..I would like to see more of these Mr. Bean, Laurel & Hardy like characters in your forthcoming creative & humorous dialogues :-)) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar 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.