Ch 6. pt 2

October 16, 2006

Shyamji wrote:

Dear Michael-ji

Pranams

Thank you for your comments.

In my humble opinion,shraddha is the very basis for

the understanding.

The reason selfknowledge and knowledge of theorems or

Boyle's laws, etc are different is because the latter

come under the realm of science while Vedanta is

perhaps "scientific" (as in rational) in its approach

but by no means constitutes "science"

[spend 30minutes with a Professor of say neuroscience

from Johns Hopkins and he can systematically tear

apart our logic - it is a different matter that what

he would have to offer as his understanding would also

be theories based on a small amount of deductive

reasoning sprinkled on a main course of unabashed

conjecture]

Sefenquiry and scientific enquiry differ because the

means employed are different.

Any knowledge (pramaa) needs a valid means of

knowledge. You are surely more wellversed than me with

the six accepted pramanas - Pratyaksha (perception),

Anumana (inference), Upamana (comparison), Arthapatti

(assumed postulated inference), Anupalabdhi

(non-apprehension), and Sabda (authoritative word).

Of them anupalabdhi and upamana, of course, do not

apply to knowledge of something that is existence

itself, and, nondual respectively.

Similairly arthapatti and anumana(which of course

includes 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 or agama - the authoritative word -

which word - of Ma shruti alone. Without shraddha in

the shruti as a valid independent and indeed

benevolent means of knowledge one cannot attain

selfknowledge.

If i have shraddha in my eyes as a pramana, and see a

flower in my hands, I "know" it is a flower, even if a

hundred others tell me i picked up a fruit not a

flower. That is shraddha in the pramana.

For a student of physics to understand e=mc2 requires

him to make his intellect fully available for the

enquiry, but he can choose to fully keep his ego

safely intact, raise all manners of objections, and if

possible, try his hardest to disprove the teaching

based on accepted rules and laws of mathematics and

physics.

Not so with an enquiry into the self. The foremost

requirement of shraddha is sharanaagati or surrender -

my Ego(or ahankara) is surrendered at the doorstep of

the Guru - I come to Guru and shruti with a complete

acknowledgement of my helplessness in having any other

valid means of knowledge and hence a full and

resounding "faith" in the teachings that will ensure

forth. I may leave ego at the doorstep but certainly

need to bring my intellect to the table and hear the

teachings in a logical framework. I still should issue

forth doubts and counterquestions - but - the

difference is - these are in no way intended to

disprove the teachings themselves or question their

validity - but these are to help me gain clarity about

the teaching - the validity of which i have already

fully accepted.

My only reassurance, if you will, is my Guru (and

other realized Seers both present and in the past)

whom this teaching has, as surely as the Sun shines,

blessed and continues to bless. "If it worked for

them, it will work for me"

So doubt I must, and frequently, but within the

overall construct of faith, so the very clearing of

the doubts serves to enhance the clarity of what my

faith knows to be true. Your doubt isn't the opposite

of your faith; it is an element of faith. As Gibran

puts it -

"Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his

twin brother."

Hence shraddha.

Is shraddha ever tested? Only in the sense that no

person without this key ingredient has ever attained

selfknowledge "shraddhavaan labhate jnanam - the man

of faith attains knowledge" and the doubter never

attains peace, neither here nor in the hereafter.

Reasoning, without shraddha is philosophy, and will

ever be at best a wonderful passtime with no end in

sight.

Shraddha, without reasoning is blind faith, with no

possibility of transformation into understanding and

release.

Reasoning and shradhha without devotion is dry enquiry

and will not transform understanding into realization.

Best wishes,

Hari OM

Shyam

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

> Namaste Shyamji,

> I am a bit puzzled by

> this 'shraddha'. If the

> component of rational demonstration is high in

> Vedanta then

> where does it come in? We don't for instance speak

> of having

> faith or belief or 'shraddha' in the theorems of

> Euclid. We either

> get them or do not get them, it's a matter of

> following the logic.

> Are you speaking of people who accept the

> conclusions of

> Vedanta without having the interest or the ability

> to follow

> the reasoning involved?

>

> Is shraddha ever tested? If it is a rational matter

> then it would

> be like testing Boyle's Law. Perhaps it is a mixed

> thing with

> both common faith and reasoning mixed. Faith with

> go-faster

> stripes then.:-)

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

||||||||||||||||||||||||

Namaste Shyamji,

Your first point was that Shraddha was

distinguished from faith by being rational as against the

blind adherence of others outside the Vedantic fold. My

questioning of this led to the more elaborated position that

shraddha is rational but not in the way that we associate

with scientific and rational inquiry. Some thinkers interpose

the term 'non-rational' here between the polar rational/irrational

concept. Others regard that as Enlightenment water sprinkled

on.

Be that as it may, what you next come to is familiar territory -

sharanaagati or surrender. I find nothing here that is not common

to all the great world religions as in them all vast commentaries have

been written to show how the faith is a single whole coherent body

of belief.

Those theological rationalisations turn blind faith into a

holistic vision with internal consistency. Old school triumphalist

thinking would hold that if I have cosmos you must have chaos.

I think you go too far when you regard philosophy as nugatory, the

dood wallahs extra dribble thrown in as it were. Many of the

positions and rebuttals of Shankara can only be understood

on the basis of his Realism. He would I think be loth to accept

that we have shraddha in the the evidence of our senses as

you intimate. Think of it: if we can get evidence of something

we must also be able to not get that evidence. In that sense

standing in front of a tree in broad daylight we can say 'there's a

tree' without any evidence being involved.

I think that there's more to philosophy than picture straightening.

Anti-intellectualism is the cause of fanaticism and all religions are

prone to it.

Best Wishes,

Michael.

October 16, 2006

Dear Sunder-ji

Thank you for your comments.

I agree with a lot of what you have written.

There is a translation of Shankara Bhasya by Krishna

Warrier which I very humbly feel is the best English

book available on the Shankarabhashyams of the Gita -

those interested may want to buy it.

May i present my understanding og some of your points

which i feel may be worth commenting on.

______________________

> Based on 5.26, Dhyana is the antaranga sadhana not

> just for chitta

> suddhi but samyagdarsana (realization)itself.

______________________

No sadhana - neither bahiranga nor antaranga - can

result in samyagdarshana or selfrealization. This is a

very clear point that has been made over and over by

bhagwan Shankara and is a very core and fundamental

message of vedanta - in fact this is one of the

crucial points of difference with the purvapakshins

who insist on tat tvam asi being a injunction for

meditation.

Sadhana can result in preparing the antahkaranam for

the teaching - sadhana cannot be a proximate or

immediate "cause" for moksha - this needs to be very

clear.

____________________________

> However in the sixth chapter the

> `baton' seems to

> pass on from Karma yoga to dhyana yoga from 6.3

> onwards.

________________________________

I agree with you completely - in fact in my last post

itself I had given Shankara's commentary on this verse

- you need not have taken the trouble of reiterating

it.

The sloka 6.18 talks about nisprah sarva kamebhya - a

mind that has been made free of hankering after

senseobjects - in this case - i feel refers primarily

to karmayoga, not so much to dhyanayoga - hence in my

comments I had talked about a karmayogi with reference

to this sloka - again this is based on Bhagwan

Shankara in the very first sloka showing very

beautifully how karmayoga leads to chittasamadhanam.

______________________________

> While I agree that karma yoga results in `some'

> steadiness and

> purification of the mind, the practice of dhyana

> yoga is taught as a

> means for further concentration and purification

_______________________________

I agree with you that this onepointedness is still be

of a relative and limited degree and nidhidhyasana is

a must - as i said the journey has just begun

_____________________________

> ** Dhyana Yoga in the sixth chapter is not 'Vichara'

>

I agree with most of your explanation, Shyam-ji,

> except for a small

> quibble regarding `vichara'.

> If by nidhidhyasana you mean vichara = thinking

> about acharya

> upadesha, contemplating on vedantic truths etc, I am

> afraid that is

> NOT the reading I get from chapter 6.

I do not think this is a quibble at all.

I also do not think it is semantics.

And with due respect to Harsha-ji, (btw, his post on

"love is not something you get but give" was superb!),

I do not regard this as being overintellectualizing

over trivial concepts. "Words" is all we have, "words"

are the pramana, not inference, not silence. So

"words" have to be understood clearly - hence alone

has Shankara labored tirelessly in writing and writing

and then again writing so many words on palmyra

leaves, so many bhashyas so many commentaries - hence

alone it is that jijnasus devote their lives

attempting to clearly understand these "words"....it

is a misconception in my humble opinion to think of

vichara as one thing and sadhana as another thing -

the primary sadhana IS the vichara itself, once the

mind has been prepared, and when we say "the vastu is

beyond words" let us be clear what we mean and imply

-because knowledge of the vastu is through words

alone.

As Bhaskar-ji put it so beautifully in his last post

-these words are our only eyes!

If by dhyana what is meant is upasana, then that is

decidedly different from nidhidhyasana.

If by dhyana what is meant is stilling of the mind,

then that is decidedly different from nidhidhyasana.

If what is meant by dhyana is activation of kundalini

shakti as suggested by Bhagwan Dhyaneshwar and other

mahatmas of the Nath sampradaya, then that is

decidedly different from nidhidhyasana.

If by dhyana what is meant is intense meditation on

Bhagwan Krishna as suggested by Prabhupada then that

is decidedly different from nidhidhyasana.

Are these "wrong" interpretations of the 6th chapter

then?? It need not be our concern. The only thing we

need to concern ourselves with is - what is the

vedantic or advaitic message of the 6th chapter and

for this Bhagwan Shankara's commentaries should be our

sole "pramana" - this alone should be the truth about

the 6th chapter(or any chapter) as far as we are

concerned.

Dhyana in the sense of Upasana is a process of

unwavering application of the same thought on some

object, such as a deity prescribed by the scriptures,

without being interrupted by any alien thought.

Nidhidhyasana is selfcontemplation - focussing the

mind to flow directly to its source, the self. As

Bhagwan Krishna says in 6.19

"yogino yata-cittasya yunjato yogam atmanah"

refers to a practice of selfcontemplation or

selfabsorption, which is part and parcel of

atmavichara alone.

And like I has recounted in 6.20 and 6.21 is mentioned

that such a yogi delights in this selfrealization

forever - that bliss, that sense of fullness is

everlasting, and this enlightened person does not ever

sway from his own true nature.

So I agree with you that between dhyana of Ch.6 and

nidhidhyasana of atmavichara there is absolutely no

difference - but we have to understand these terms -

dhyana, upasana, chittavrttinirodhah, nidhidhyasana,

etc very carefully. Between upasana and nidhidhyasana

there is a very crucial difference - one is

vastutantra and the other is kartrutantra.

And anywhere in vedanta where selfrealization is being

talked about can NEVER talk about kartrutantra as a

proximate cause - it is the very antithesis of vedanta

in my humble opinion.

I sincerely thank you, and other respected and learned

members, for taking the time and effort to read my

posts and participate in these discussions - I hope

they are of as much help to at least some as they are

to me.

Humble pranams

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

__________

October 17, 2006

Greetings SHyam-ji!

I LOVED YOUR POST ON 'SHRADDHA' - NOW . it is bit more clearer - the

difference between shraddha and vishwas is the difference between

Ganga jal and Tap water ! SHRADDHHA IS PURE AND UNADULTERATED BASED

ON FAITH, UNDERSTANDING AND DEVOTION !

YOU CAPTURED IT ALL IN THE FOLLOWING PARA ! THANX

( Reasoning, without shraddha is philosophy, and will

> ever be at best a wonderful passtime with no end in

> sight.

> Shraddha, without reasoning is blind faith, with no

> possibility of transformation into understanding and

> release.

> Reasoning and shradhha without devotion is dry enquiry

> and will not transform understanding into realization.)

HOWEVER, I WOULD ADD THESE LINES FROM RUMI to enforce another secret

ingredient in 'shraddha' that is 'love' !!!!

THERE lies a desert

Past faith and infidelity

In whose broad spaces

My weary heart is fain to be.

Who cometh thither

In peace at last he slumbereth,

For there abideth

Nor infidelity, nor faith.

You are absolutelt right about 'surrender' ! when a seeker enters

the sacred space of 'god' ( faith or whatever) he submits his Head. This is a metaphor for leaving Wisdom and Knowledge behind as the seeker enters the path of Love.

Yes! Believe it or not , advaita is also a path of love- love

fotTruth!

ps - the pandavAs had shraddha in SRI dronachraya and Bhishmacharya

the Kauravs did not !

WITH WARMEST REGARDS

October 18, 2006

Dear Michael-ji

> Be that as it may, what you next come to is familiar territory -

> sharanaagati or surrender. I find nothing here that is not common

> to all the great world religions as in them all vast commentaries have

> been written to show how the faith is a single whole coherent body

> of belief.

>

> Those theological rationalisations turn blind faith into a

> holistic vision with internal consistency.

________________________

I dont think spiritual enquiry into the self could be equated with

theological rationalizations.

The concept of surrender, as wonderfully developed in the Psalms, for

example, does not involve any element of rational enquiry where doubts

are encouraged.

There is more than a fine line between theology, even one cloaked in

rationality, and, spiritual enquiry where-in the devotional flavour is

intrinsic.

Every religion is truly great to the extent that it helps guide its

followers towards divinity.

______________________________

> I think you go too far when you regard philosophy as nugatory, the

> dood wallahs extra dribble thrown in as it were. Many of the

> positions and rebuttals of Shankara can only be understood

> on the basis of his Realism. He would I think be loth to accept

> that we have shraddha in the the evidence of our senses as

> you intimate. Think of it: if we can get evidence of something

> we must also be able to not get that evidence. In that sense

> standing in front of a tree in broad daylight we can say 'there's a

> tree' without any evidence being involved.

________________________________

Would you consider that philosophy, a product of the intellect which

in turn is the product of the ignorance that this philosophy seeks to

destroy, independent of a means of knowledge outside of it, can tell

you the truth, about yourself? If no, then I dont see how shraddha and

surrender to this means of knowledge is optional.

> Anti-intellectualism is the cause of fanaticism and all religions are

> prone to it.

___________________________

Couldn't agree with you more.

Humble pranams

Hari OM

Shyam

October 18, 2006

Dear Michael-ji and Shyam-ji,

I have not been following the recent discussions on 'Shraddha' but I

do remember listening to an excellent 'Guru Purnima' speech by Swami

Paramarthananda-ji and posted a message (#23554, July 2004)

regarding this. If members can provide a link to it or its contents,

this speech may provide a lot of insight into the topic on hand.

regards

Sundar Rajan

>> July 6, 2004

Namaste

Continuing on the discussion regarding Guru Purnima I wish to bring

the group's attenion to the following web-site

(http://www.yogamalika.org) and a speech titled "What

is Faith?" by Swami Paramarthananda delivered on Guru Purnima day.

As some of you on the forum may already know, Swami Paramarthananda

is well-known as a erudite, lucid and superb exponent of our

scriptures (in English), very closely following Sankara's

interpretation. The yoga malika folks have done a great job by

posting His Uddhava Gita and Gita classes on the net as audio files

as soon they happen in Madras. He also discusses 'generic' topics on

New Year, Guru Purnima day etc - you can check them out using the

link.

Swamiji presents a profound and deeper understanding of Shraddha in

this year's speech, questioning our understanding of it, compares

and contrasts modern science's interpretaion of faith etc. I am sure

you will enjoy it!

regards

Sundar Rajan

>>

October 18, 2006

Shyam-ji wrote:

Would you consider that philosophy, a product of the intellect

which

in turn is the product of the ignorance that this philosophy seeks to

destroy, independent of a means of knowledge outside of it, can tell

you the truth, about yourself? If no, then I dont see how shraddha

and

surrender to this means of knowledge is optional.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Namaste Shyam-ji and all advaitins,

In our sifting and riddling we are getting down to the

gold that backs our religious currency. From which

mother lode is it washed down by rivers of culture,

mystical experience and primordial revelations?

Dhyanasaraswati in her lyrical post says love is

the answer which throws us beyond mind forged

paradox. It's never wise to go against Mother!

When I google 'shraddha' I find a hotel,

testing and analysis services, metalwork

shops but not much on the source of

the metaphor. The teaching is in the

metaphor perhaps but other members will

add their grains and grams.

Best Wishes,

Michael.

October 18, 2006

Dear Shyam-ji, Michael-ji and others,

On the topic of, philosophy, faith, reasoning, and the assertion that one

cannot arrive at truth through reasoning without faith...

It sounds a little bit like "faith" is here being linked to or discussed as

'faith-in-Sruti'.

However, Sankara points out that the second chapter of Gaudapada's Karika

has the aim of showing that the unreality of duality (illusion) can be

ascertained *without* Sruti. Sankara writes that while the first chapter

showed the unreality of duality based on Sruti (in fact he writes "merely on

the authority of Sruti"):

"It is also equally possible to determine the unreality of duality through

pure reasoning." (II:i)

In the notes to this verse, Swami Nikhilananda also writes:

"The scripture, no doubt, convinces those who believe in its authority. But

the philosophy of Vedanta can hold its ground against those who do not

believe the authority of the Vedas. . . . It betrays ignorance of higher

Vedanta to say that the reasoning employed in the Vedanta philosophy to

arrive at the Ultimate Truth is always subservient to Scriptural Authority."

Best wishes,

Peter

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of ombhurbhuva

18 October 2006 07:21

advaitin

Re: Ch 6. pt 2

Shyam-ji wrote:

Would you consider that philosophy, a product of the intellect

which

in turn is the product of the ignorance that this philosophy seeks to

destroy, independent of a means of knowledge outside of it, can tell you the

truth, about yourself? If no, then I dont see how shraddha

and

surrender to this means of knowledge is optional.

<snip>

October 19, 2006

Dear Peter-ji

Pranams.

Isnt it interesting that Shankara's discussion you

refer is is occurring in the context of His commentary

on the shurti itself??

That apart, in my understanding, any knowledge needs a

valid means of knowledge.

As I had outlined in my prior post, any knowledge can

be only on the basis of the six accepted means -

unless you are postulating a means of knowledge

outside of the purview of these.

In reading your thoughts, I seem to have the

impression that logical reasoning and inference are

being proposed by you as a valid means of

selfknowledge.

Logic or reasoning in Vedanta is always used to

understand the Shruti not to replace the Shruti,

Shruti being the only valid means of knowledge. It

helps differentiate faith from fanatacism. Fanatacism

consists of a steadfast holding on to a single idea

when alternative ideas have equal validity i.e. A is a

true messenger of God and B is a true messenger of God

are both statements with equal validity, and anyone

strongly aligned to one position to the exclusive of

the other with no reasoning will be considered a

fanatic.

In Vedanta, logic is used to defend (or understand)

the message contained in the Shruti against other

philosophical concepts and constructs, by

demonstrating the inherent fallacies in those

positions, when considered in a holistic manner.

Why cannot inference be considered a valid means of

knowledge about the Self?

The reason is that it is the intellectual self who is

right now in ignorance. He cannot think his way out of

his ignorance - no matter how sharp or evolved is his

intellect. The reason is that inference can only

generate concepts, and perceptions of concepts can

both change and vary. Any concept can be negated.

Newtonian concepts give way to Einstenian concepts.

These may in turn, as science evolves, as information

becomes available, as more dimensions come into play

evolve into even more refined concepts. No

intellectual concept can be said to be Absolute with

regards to the time-space matrix these very concepts

are formed in. Only something that itself can be

considered eternal, can be relied upon for this - it

needs to be a teaching, a sourcebook, that was valid

hundreds of cycles of creations before and will

continue to be for all the subsequent cycles to come.

That which can never be negated is the Truth. And the

Truth is different from a concept of the truth.

The "snake" has to understand it is the "rope". Can it

ever perceive the rope using only its "snake

intellect"?

A jiva, with infinity extending beyond and infinity

extending within, with a infinitely limited capacity

to intellectualize, cannot "know" the truth about the

Cosmos, and about himSelf, and about their

relationship or nondifference, and his true place in

the Grand schema of things without a benevolent Shruti

telling him "tat tvam asi" or "poornamadam

poornamidam.." and in turn his implicit shraddha in

the teaching, and his subsequent efforts to understand

this teaching, and internalize it by removing his

preexisting misidentifications.

Buddhism is a prime example of the dangers of thinking

"out of the Shruti box" or of not accepting the Shruti

as a means of knowledge, where we find reasoning

sequestered from Shruti and taken to its extremes,

results in absurd nondual positions of nothingness and

momentary consciousness. Hence it is that

Shakyamuni(considered an avatara of Vishnu) is quite

ironically not embraced in the fold of Hinduism.

But as far as intellectual gymnastic goes, you will

certainly not find a dearth of them in Nagarjuna's or

Shantideva's or any other teachings.

Nonduality as a concept can be intuited (Schroedinger

for example among other physicists was able to intuit

an underlying unity amongst all this diversity) or

intellectually reasoned out, but only as a concept.

Knowledge about its truth for mySelf cannot be arrived

at, without a valid means and a devotion to and faith

in that means.

The vedanta package cannot be accepted piece-meal. You

cannot reject prarabdha, rebirth, papa-punya, maya and

other ideas and only accept what you find

"intellectually" palatable. And ideas such as these

wil forever be outside the reach of the intellect or

reasoning.

Freedom is the objective, Ignorance is the lock, and

only the Upanishads hold the combination (- you still

need the intellect to punch in the numbers!)

Humble pranams

Hari OM

Shyam

--- Peter <not_2 (AT) btinternet (DOT) com> wrote:

>

> Dear Shyam-ji, Michael-ji and others,

>

> On the topic of, philosophy, faith, reasoning, and

> the assertion that one

> cannot arrive at truth through reasoning without

> faith...

>

> It sounds a little bit like "faith" is here being

> linked to or discussed as

> 'faith-in-Sruti'.

>

> However, Sankara points out that the second chapter

> of Gaudapada's Karika

> has the aim of showing that the unreality of duality

> (illusion) can be

> ascertained *without* Sruti. Sankara writes that

> while the first chapter

> showed the unreality of duality based on Sruti (in

> fact he writes "merely on

> the authority of Sruti"):

>

> "It is also equally possible to determine the

> unreality of duality through

> pure reasoning." (II:i)

>

> In the notes to this verse, Swami Nikhilananda also

> writes:

>

> "The scripture, no doubt, convinces those who

> believe in its authority. But

> the philosophy of Vedanta can hold its ground

> against those who do not

> believe the authority of the Vedas. . . . It betrays

> ignorance of higher

> Vedanta to say that the reasoning employed in the

> Vedanta philosophy to

> arrive at the Ultimate Truth is always subservient

> to Scriptural Authority."

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Peter

>

> advaitin

> [advaitin] On Behalf

> Of ombhurbhuva

> 18 October 2006 07:21

> advaitin

> Re: Ch 6. pt 2

>

> Shyam-ji wrote:

>

> Would you consider that philosophy, a product of the

> intellect

>

> which

> in turn is the product of the ignorance that this

> philosophy seeks to

> destroy, independent of a means of knowledge outside

> of it, can tell you the

> truth, about yourself? If no, then I dont see how

> shraddha

>

> and

> surrender to this means of knowledge is optional.

>

> <snip>

>

October 19, 2006

Dear Shyam-ji,

Since I was just on line replying to Subbu-ji I may as well reply to you

too. If you will forgive me for saying so, your mail sounds like a sermon,

and one based on incorrect assumptions as to what I believe. It would take

to long to reply to it in detail, and since it does not address any of the

views that I actually hold I simply refer you to the recent reply I just

posted to Subbu-ji.

Best wishes,

Peter

==================

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of Shyam

19 October 2006 18:50

advaitin

RE: Re: Ch 6. pt 2

Dear Peter-ji

Pranams.

Isnt it interesting that Shankara's discussion you

refer is is occurring in the context of His commentary

on the shurti itself??

October 20, 2006

Dear Shyam-ji:

Namaste.

Thanks for your kind comments on my post "Love is not what you get.". I

agree with you that words are very important vehicles to indicate the

truth. There is a love song by the Bee Gees, a popular rock group from

Australia from the 1970s and 80s, and one of the lines of the song

intuitively states this truth, "Words are all I have, to take your heart

away...". So, in a sense you are right, words are pramana or at least

part of the pramana. Ideally, words should not lead to even more words

because there would be no end to that. Even lovers stop talking

sometimes and are silent. Sat-Chit-Ananda is beyond words and thoughts.

Can words take us there, at least part of the way? Probably. But only

part of the way. Words and thoughts cease in the presence of Silence.

That is what Bhagavan Dakshinamurthy's silence is meant to indicate, I

think.

Happy Diwali to all.

Love,

Harsha

-------

Re: Re: Ch 6. pt 2

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:51:28 -0700 (PDT)

Shyam <shyam_md >

advaitin

And with due respect to Harsha-ji, (btw, his post on

"love is not something you get but give" was superb!),

I do not regard this as being overintellectualizing

over trivial concepts. "Words" is all we have, "words"

are the pramana, not inference, not silence. So

"words" have to be understood clearly - hence alone

has Shankara labored tirelessly in writing and writing

and then again writing so many words on palmyra

leaves, so many bhashyas so many commentaries - hence

alone it is that jijnasus devote their lives

attempting to clearly understand these "words"...

October 21, 2006

Dear Harsha-ji

Wish you a wonderful Diwali.

The link you had provided took me to your blogspot(i

think) and I found many delightful posts there :-)

With regards to the silence of Dakshinamurthy I see

this has been brought up more than a few times

recently in this forum, and I felt I should perhaps

clarify based on my understanding.

The silence of the Ultimate teacher or Ishwara is not

in the sense of a mum speechlessness that we might

understand "silence" to be.

If staying mum could teach something effectively,

Krishna could have saved himself the effort of

eighteen long chapters of almost uninterrupted speech,

isnt it? And the Upanishads would perhaps have blank

spaces.

After all no teaching of any kind is possible without

communication.

Then why the very opening lines of the dhyanastotra to

Dakshinamurthy start with "maunavakhyaprakatita"

The silence is meant to indicate that the meaning of

the (liberating) words He utters "tat tvam asi" ("tat

tvam asi iti veda vachasaat yo bodhayat ashritan") is

not to be taken in its direct sense(shabdavachyam) but

in an implied sense (shabdalakshyam).

Because right now when someone says "thou" we take the

"thou" to be something it is not, and we take "that"

to also be something else. When i teach a child, "This

is a flower" what is taught is a direct meaning, but

"tat tvam asi" is not like that. Here, it is not in

the direct sense that we are to understand "I am

Brahman" but in an implied sense alone. This then

necessitates that I, the jiva, assimilate and

understand what those words imply, what the teaching

signifies - this teaching being the only means to

remove my ignorance about the everpresent Real - and

then, what remains is that the one nondual Brahman -

shantam shivam advaitam - hence silence.

With regards to your lines from the Atmabodha also

"To see a light, no other light is needed. So also,

the Self being

self-effulgent, needs no other means of knowledge.

It shines of itself."

Yes - Brahman needs no means of knowledge - It alone

Is Jnanam - being the knowledge that makes possible

every other thing known, that makes every knowing

possible - what we need a pramana or means of

knowledge is to remove our ignorance about our true

nature being that vastu, an ignorance that is

beginingless. This ignorance needs to end and it ends

by my understanding of the words of the Upanisads as

taught by a qualified Guru. Hence the need for a

means.

I am sure Harsha-ji, that as a seasoned scholar of

vedanta, you know these very well and more, but I am

writing only so others, who may perhaps not be as

wellversed as you are, not misunderstand.

I fully agree with what you nicely said in the end of

your last post, that what is important is to practice,

to put these words to test as it were..else what we

have is mere loquacious verbosity, which of course

gets us nowhere, least of all to selfknowledge.

My pranams to you, and best wishes

Hari OM

Shyam

--- Harsha <harsha (AT) (DOT) com> wrote:

> Dear Shyam-ji:

> Namaste.

>

> Thanks for your kind comments on my post "Love is

> not what you get.". I

> agree with you that words are very important

> vehicles to indicate the

> truth. There is a love song by the Bee Gees, a

> popular rock group from

> Australia from the 1970s and 80s, and one of the

> lines of the song

> intuitively states this truth, "Words are all I

> have, to take your heart

> away...". So, in a sense you are right, words are

> pramana or at least

> part of the pramana. Ideally, words should not lead

> to even more words

> because there would be no end to that. Even lovers

> stop talking

> sometimes and are silent. Sat-Chit-Ananda is beyond

> words and thoughts.

> Can words take us there, at least part of the way?

> Probably. But only

> part of the way. Words and thoughts cease in the

> presence of Silence.

> That is what Bhagavan Dakshinamurthy's silence is

> meant to indicate, I

> think.

>

> Happy Diwali to all.

>

> Love,

> Harsha

>

> -------

> Re: Re: Ch 6. pt 2

> Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:51:28 -0700 (PDT)

> Shyam <shyam_md >

> advaitin

>

> And with due respect to Harsha-ji, (btw, his post on

> "love is not something you get but give" was

> superb!),

> I do not regard this as being overintellectualizing

> over trivial concepts. "Words" is all we have,

> "words"

> are the pramana, not inference, not silence. So

> "words" have to be understood clearly - hence alone

> has Shankara labored tirelessly in writing and

> writing

> and then again writing so many words on palmyra

> leaves, so many bhashyas so many commentaries -

> hence

> alone it is that jijnasus devote their lives

> attempting to clearly understand these "words"...

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

October 21, 2006

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Dear Harsha-ji

> The silence of the Ultimate teacher or Ishwara is not

> in the sense of a mum speechlessness that we might

> understand "silence" to be.

>

> If staying mum could teach something effectively,

> Krishna could have saved himself the effort of

> eighteen long chapters of almost uninterrupted speech,

> isnt it? And the Upanishads would perhaps have blank

> spaces.

> After all no teaching of any kind is possible without

> communication.

ShrIgurubhyo NamaH

Namaste,

Here is an excerpt from the book 'Enlightening Expositions' p.82

from the Chapter: 'Where words fail':

// In his Brahmasutra Bhashyam III.ii.17, Shankara has recounted an

interesting Vedic tale that is pertinent here. Baashkali was

desirous of knowing Brahman. So, he approached the enlightened sage

BAdhva and requested, 'Please teach me about Brahman'. BAdhva

remained silent. BAshkali repeated his appeal but again the sage

did not respond. Being earnest, BAshkali asked for the third

time, 'Please teach me about Brahman'. The sage said, 'I have

already taught you but you have failed to comprehend. This Atma is

quiescence. //

In the Bhashyam, these are the words that the Acharya writes:

//bAshkalinA cha bAdhvaH pRRiShTaH san avachanenaiva brahma provAcha

iti shrUyate : 'sa hovAcha adhIhi bhO iti sa tUShNIm

babhuuva....upashAnto'yam AtmA iti'.//

'avachanenaiva brahma provAcha' means: 'He taught without speaking

at all.'

(No editor to my knowledge, has provided the source of this Vedic

quote that Shankara uses in this bhashyam. That it is Vedic is not

in doubt for Shankara writes: shrUyate.)

Regarding the silence of Dakshinamurti, it is not again in doubt

that He used any words at all. His Chinmudra was there for people

of the Highest adhikAritvam to understand. The books that He has in

one hand is for the others without that degree of competence. In

His benedictory discourse (delivered, in Kannada, at Bangalore on

2.9.1978)the Jagadguru Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha Swamigal has said:

// What was Shankara Bhagavatpada like intrinsically? This has been

elucidated in this verse of the Madhaviya Shankara Vijayam:

ajnAnAntargahana-patitAn Atma-vidyopadeshaiH

trAtum lokAn......

muktvA mounam vaTaviTapino mUlato niShpatantI

shambhor mUrtischarati bhuvane shankaraachaarya-rUpA

(To save, by teachings about the Self, people, who are trapped in

the dense forest of ignorance and who are exceedingly tormented by

the heat ....Dakshinamurti gave up silence and, coming forth from

the foot of the banyan tree, moves about in the world in the form of

Shankaracharya.)

Dakshinamurti remained seated at the foot of a banyan tree teaching

sages, while observing silence. By that very teaching, imparted

through silence, the doubts of the sages were set at rest and they

became enlightened about the Self. What, however, is the position

in Kali Yuga (the present age of unrighteousness?

We have ignorance. The sages (spoken of above) too had ignorance.

What is the difference between their ignorance and ours? There is

darkness on the night of the full moon as also on the night of the

new moon; there is no night without darkness. In the darkness of

the night of the full moon, we are able to move about on the roads

and are also able to perform our routine activities. We, however,

have to strain to read a book; that is all. In the darkness of the

night of the new moon, if the sky happens to be overcast too, it is

not possible for us to walk on the road or to engage in our

activities; the question of reading a book does not arise at all.

The ignorance of the sages was like the darkness of the night of the

full moon while our ignorance is like the darkness of the night of

the new moon. To get rid of the ignorance that they had, the sages

sought refuge in Dakshinamurti. Our position is like that of the

man described below:

Transmigratory existence is a forest conflagration. The man trapped

in the forest of ignorance, has fllen onto the flame of this fire.

Should he go forward or backward? In both directions, there is

fire. As such, he is not in a position to go forward or backward;

he cannot also remain where he is. For one in such a terrible

predicament, the only pertinent succour is a rain of nectar which

would put out the fire and also rejuvenate him. The teaching about

the Self is this rain of nectar. To save the intensely tormented

man by raining nectar, Lord Dakshinamurti acted by giving up

silence. For uplifting the sages Sanaka, Sanandana, etc., the Lord

just showed the Chinmudra. With a smiling face, He radiated peace.

By glancing at them, He produced a cool rain of nectar. That was

sufficient for the sages. For us, it is insufficient.

So, recognizing the limited competence and deplorable attitude of

people in Kali Yuga, the Lord Himself started from the foot of the

banyan tree and came to the people. The figure of Shiva,

Dakshinamurti, moves about in the world in the form of

Shankaracharya. He manifested in the form of man to make His

teachings appear highly relevant to the people who are trapped in

ignorance. Thus did Dakshinamurti give up His silence and His place

at the foot of the banyan tree and .....//

Speaking about the famous line of a verse:

gurostu maunam vyAkhyAnam, shiShyAstu Chhinna-samshayAH

Acharyal explains: There is no need for the disciple to ask any

question. There is no need for the Guru to verbalize any reply. If

one is seated in front of the Guru, Shakti pAta takes place; that

is, the power that is in the Guru descends on the disciple. As for

the dsiciple's doubts, 'the knot of the heart is broken and all

doubts completely vanish'. All this happens automatically on one

seeing the Supreme.

Dakshinamurti, purely by His grace, fulfills the desire of Shuka and

others to know the truth and grants them knowledge. What do the

disciples of Dakshinamurti, such as Shuka, say? Each avers, 'On my

coming to Your presence, all my doubts have been cleared. I have

received instruction about realization of Brahman'.//

Many are the instances reported about questions/doubts being set at

rest by sitting in the silent presence of Ramana Maharshi. Such

cases are not rare in the case of other Mahatmas as well. Of course,

this does not happen to everyone. But that does not make such

instances untrue or impossible.

With pranams to all sadhakas,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

October 21, 2006

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> ShrIgurubhyo NamaH

>

> Namaste,

>

> Here is an excerpt from the book 'Enlightening Expositions' p.82

> from the Chapter: 'Where words fail':

>

> // In his Brahmasutra Bhashyam III.ii.17, Shankara has recounted

an

> interesting Vedic tale that is pertinent here.

>

> In the Bhashyam, these are the words that the Acharya writes:

>

> //bAshkalinA cha bAdhvaH pRRiShTaH san avachanenaiva brahma

provAcha

> iti shrUyate : 'sa hovAcha adhIhi bhO iti sa tUShNIm

> babhuuva....upashAnto'yam AtmA iti'.//

>

> 'avachanenaiva brahma provAcha' means: 'He taught without speaking

> at all.'

>

> (No editor to my knowledge, has provided the source of this Vedic

> quote that Shankara uses in this bhashyam. That it is Vedic is

not

> in doubt for Shankara writes: shrUyate.)

Nrisimhatapani Upanishad has this sentence: Ch. 7

http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanishhat/nrisinha.itx

........nety avachanenaiva anubhavann uvaacha evameva

chidaanandaavapy avachanena eva anubhavann uvaacha sarvam anyad iti

sa paramaanandasya brahmaNo naama brahmeti.......

[Engl. transl. at

http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/nrisimhauttaratapaniya.html ]

October 22, 2006

Dear Subbu-ji,

Thank you for that excellent post quoting those passages on teaching through

Silence. "Staying mum" has absolutely nothing to do with this silence at

all - it is simply keeping one's mouth shout. Anyone who has 'experienced'

even just a few moments of this silence will know it is 'knowledge and

being' itself, and may well have understood more in that few moments than a

lifetime of studying books and intellectual analysis could impart.

We have recently been talking about faith. I have only a limited faith in

reasoning, and limited faith in reasoning with faith, as so much of this

kind of reasoning often tends to justify or prove merely what the person

believed at the outset of their inquiry. As we look around the world we see

so many examples of those with strong beliefs and clever intellects using

logic and reason to justify whatever actions suit them. So

reasoning-with-faith can at times be just as fanatical as

faith-without-reasoning and as heartless as reasoning-without-faith.

Much of what we think we know is just an accumulation of words and thoughts

and passages from books.

I place my faith in that Silence; in that current of silent-teaching which

resides in the Heart of all beings. And in this I feel there is real hope

for all beings whatever their spiritual path, whatever their outward form of

belief or religion, or even whether literate or illiterate.

I am glad you mention Ramana Maharshi, as He is a great example of that

teaching through silence attributed to Dakshinamurti. Here is a passage

from "Talks with Ramana Maharshi" :

"Language is only a medium for communicating one's thoughts to another. It

is called in only after thoughts arise; other thoughts arise after the

'I-thought' rises; the 'I-thought' is the root of all conversation. When

one remains without thinking one understands another by means of the

universal language of silence. Silence is ever-speaking; it is a perennial

flow of language; it is interrupted by speaking. These words obstruct that

mute language. There is electricity flowing in a wire. With resistance to

its passage, it glows as a lamp or revolves as a fan. In the wire it remains

as electric energy. Similarly also, silence is the eternal flow of language,

obstructed by words. . . . What one fails to know by conversation extending

to several years can be known in a trice in Silence, or in front of Silence

- e.g., Dakshinamurti, and his four disciples. That is the highest and most

effective language."

(Talk 246.)

Best wishes,

Peter

________________________________

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of subrahmanian_v

21 October 2006 19:18

advaitin

Re: Ch 6. pt 2

advaitin <advaitin%40> , Shyam

<shyam_md wrote:

>

> Dear Harsha-ji

> The silence of the Ultimate teacher or Ishwara is not

> in the sense of a mum speechlessness that we might

> understand "silence" to be.

>

> If staying mum could teach something effectively,

> Krishna could have saved himself the effort of

> eighteen long chapters of almost uninterrupted speech,

> isnt it? And the Upanishads would perhaps have blank

> spaces.

> After all no teaching of any kind is possible without

> communication.

ShrIgurubhyo NamaH

Namaste,

Here is an excerpt from the book 'Enlightening Expositions' p.82

from the Chapter: 'Where words fail':

<snip>

October 22, 2006

Apologies, the second sentence should read:

"Staying mum" has absolutely nothing to do with this silence at all - it is

simply keeping one's mouth shut."

Peter

________________________________

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of Peter

22 October 2006 01:11

advaitin

RE: Re: Ch 6. pt 2

Dear Subbu-ji,

Thank you for that excellent post quoting those passages on teaching through

Silence. "Staying mum" has absolutely nothing to do with this silence at

all - it is simply keeping one's mouth shout.

<snip>

October 22, 2006

Thank you Peter-ji for quoting my favorite passage from Sri Ramana

maharishi's teachings on 'silence as an upadesha' - if you look in the

archives , i have also quoted this on one occassion! .

(

Silence is ever-speaking; it is a perennial

> flow of language; it is interrupted by speaking. These words

obstruct that> mute language. There is electricity flowing in a wire.

With resistance to > its passage, it glows as a lamp or revolves as a

fan. In the wire it remains

> as electric energy. Similarly also, silence is the eternal flow of

language,> obstructed by words. . . . What one fails to know by

conversation extending > to several years can be known in a trice in

Silence, or in front of Silence > - e.g., Dakshinamurti, and his four

disciples. That is the highest and most > effective language."

(Talk 246.))

In this context Sri Ramana also NARRATED a famous story .... here it

goes ...

There is an old story, which demonstrates the power of the Guru's

silence. Tattvaraya composed a Bharani, a kind of poetic composition

in Tamil, in honour of his Guru Swarupananda, and convened an assembly

of learned Pandits (pundits) to hear the work and assess its value.

The Pandits raised the objection that a Bharani was only composed in

honour of great heroes capable of killing a thousand elephants in

battle and that it was not in order to compose such a work in honour

of an ascetic.

Thereupon the author said, "Let us all go to my Guru and we shall have

this matter settled there."

They went to the Guru and, after they had all taken their seats, the

author told his Guru the purpose of their visit. The Guru sat silent

and all the others also remained in mouna (silence). The whole day

passed, the night came, and some more days and nights, and yet all sat

there silently, no thought at all occurring to any of them and nobody

thinking or asking why they had come there. After three or four days

like this, the Guru moved his mind a bit, and the people assembled

immediately regained their thought activity. They then

declared, `Conquering a thousand elephants is nothing beside this

Guru's power to conquer the rutting elephants of all our egos put

together. So certainly he deserves the Bharani in his honour!"

PLEASE VISIT

http://www.hinduism.co.za/silent.htm

to read about the power of teaching through Silence!

may i share these beautiful lines from Khalil Gibran's 'Prophet' ?

"And there are those who talk, and without knowledge or forethought

reveal a truth which they themselves do not understand.

And there are those who have the truth within them, but they tell it

not in words.

In the bosom of such as these the spirit dwells in rhythmic silence."

The soul sings and dances in the case of a self-realized saint . It is

not 'silent' !

love and regards

October 22, 2006

advaitin, "advaitins" <advaitins wrote:

> Nrisimhatapani Upanishad has this sentence: Ch. 7

>

> http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanishhat/nrisinha.itx

>

> .......nety avachanenaiva anubhavann uvaacha evameva

> chidaanandaavapy avachanena eva anubhavann uvaacha sarvam anyad iti

> sa paramaanandasya brahmaNo naama brahmeti.......

>

> [Engl. transl. at

>

> http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/nrisimhauttaratapaniya.html ]

>

Namaste,

Thanks for the above reference. Actually, the Vedic passage that is

quoted by Shankara in the Bhashya is:

'sa hovAcha adhIhi bhO iti sa tUShNIm babhUva tam ha dvitIye vA

tRRitiiye vA vachana uvAcha brUmaH khalu tvam tu na vijAnAsi.

upshAnto'yamAtmA'

This passage is what is found with no reference in many editions

that i perused.

Pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

October 23, 2006

Dear Subbu-ji

Thank you for that detailed post with clarifications

and beautiful references.

I agree with you that for disciples/jivas of the

adhikartvam of Sanaka-adi, the chinmudra was

sufficient for atmajnana.

Even here, we see that it is what the chinmudra

implies -i.e. the implied meaning of the chinmudra

that conveys or communicates the teaching - not the

silence itself.

To use the expression "maunavyakhyam" to deny Ma

Shruti Its place as the pramana for this knowledge is

I think a misunderstanding of what this expression

signifies, and I think you will agree with me here.

Silence cannot be a pramana for selfknowledge, however

eloquent the silence may be.

The vastu itself is beyond words - it is not

describable directly, words cannot reach it, nor can

any method of cognition - hence alone it needs to be

described in an implied sense - no matter what word

you use to describe it directly, it will fail - this

is where silence comes in, at least this is how Swami

Dayananda-ji teaches and to me this seems to be the

best explanation for this expression.

Certainly for the times we live in (and perhaps even

the time of Arjuna), adhikartvam is so limited and

intellects so densely diluted, that the use of words

for teaching should be considered indispensable.

The teacher may be great - but the receptacle is

dirty.

It needs words - not just words but many words, not

just many words, but talks, not just talks but many

many talks! and to be heard over and over at that..

:-) ..and then alone perhaps something starts to make

sense..!

Bhagwan Krishna says in the Gita - "pariprashnena

sevaya" - serve the Guru and ask him questions. And

the supremely benevolent Acharya even lays out many

hundred years ago what questions these should be, in

his commentary - what is bondage? who am i? etc

- now.. these questions need answers....answers in the

form of the teaching, in the tradition of the

sampradaya. Can one imagine what it would be like for

a student who, listening to Bhagwan Krishna's advice,

appropriately approaches a Guru with these questions

and is greeted by a prolonged and resolute silence??

A thousand pranams to the lotus feets of all our Gurus

who labor tirelessly to give us this liberating

teaching in words.

Hari OM

Shyam

--- subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

> advaitin, Shyam

> <shyam_md wrote:

> >

> > Dear Harsha-ji

> > The silence of the Ultimate teacher or Ishwara is

> not

> > in the sense of a mum speechlessness that we might

> > understand "silence" to be.

> >

> > If staying mum could teach something effectively,

> > Krishna could have saved himself the effort of

> > eighteen long chapters of almost uninterrupted

> speech,

> > isnt it? And the Upanishads would perhaps have

> blank

> > spaces.

> > After all no teaching of any kind is possible

> without

> > communication.

>

> ShrIgurubhyo NamaH

>

> Namaste,

>

> Here is an excerpt from the book 'Enlightening

> Expositions' p.82

> from the Chapter: 'Where words fail':

>

> // In his Brahmasutra Bhashyam III.ii.17, Shankara

> has recounted an

> interesting Vedic tale that is pertinent here.

> Baashkali was

> desirous of knowing Brahman. So, he approached the

> enlightened sage

> BAdhva and requested, 'Please teach me about

> Brahman'. BAdhva

> remained silent. BAshkali repeated his appeal but

> again the sage

> did not respond. Being earnest, BAshkali asked for

> the third

> time, 'Please teach me about Brahman'. The sage

> said, 'I have

> already taught you but you have failed to

> comprehend. This Atma is

> quiescence. //

>

> In the Bhashyam, these are the words that the

> Acharya writes:

>

> //bAshkalinA cha bAdhvaH pRRiShTaH san avachanenaiva

> brahma provAcha

> iti shrUyate : 'sa hovAcha adhIhi bhO iti sa tUShNIm

>

> babhuuva....upashAnto'yam AtmA iti'.//

>

> 'avachanenaiva brahma provAcha' means: 'He taught

> without speaking

> at all.'

>

> (No editor to my knowledge, has provided the source

> of this Vedic

> quote that Shankara uses in this bhashyam. That it

> is Vedic is not

> in doubt for Shankara writes: shrUyate.)

>

> Regarding the silence of Dakshinamurti, it is not

> again in doubt

> that He used any words at all. His Chinmudra was

> there for people

> of the Highest adhikAritvam to understand. The

> books that He has in

> one hand is for the others without that degree of

> competence. In

> His benedictory discourse (delivered, in Kannada, at

> Bangalore on

> 2.9.1978)the Jagadguru Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha

> Swamigal has said:

>

> // What was Shankara Bhagavatpada like

> intrinsically? This has been

> elucidated in this verse of the Madhaviya Shankara

> Vijayam:

>

> ajnAnAntargahana-patitAn Atma-vidyopadeshaiH

> trAtum lokAn......

> muktvA mounam vaTaviTapino mUlato niShpatantI

> shambhor mUrtischarati bhuvane shankaraachaarya-rUpA

>

> (To save, by teachings about the Self, people, who

> are trapped in

> the dense forest of ignorance and who are

> exceedingly tormented by

> the heat ....Dakshinamurti gave up silence and,

> coming forth from

> the foot of the banyan tree, moves about in the

> world in the form of

> Shankaracharya.)

>

> Dakshinamurti remained seated at the foot of a

> banyan tree teaching

> sages, while observing silence. By that very

> teaching, imparted

> through silence, the doubts of the sages were set at

> rest and they

> became enlightened about the Self. What, however,

> is the position

> in Kali Yuga (the present age of unrighteousness?

>

> We have ignorance. The sages (spoken of above) too

> had ignorance.

> What is the difference between their ignorance and

> ours? There is

> darkness on the night of the full moon as also on

> the night of the

> new moon; there is no night without darkness. In

> the darkness of

> the night of the full moon, we are able to move

> about on the roads

> and are also able to perform our routine activities.

> We, however,

> have to strain to read a book; that is all. In the

> darkness of the

> night of the new moon, if the sky happens to be

> overcast too, it is

> not possible for us to walk on the road or to engage

> in our

> activities; the question of reading a book does not

> arise at all.

>

> The ignorance of the sages was like the darkness of

> the night of the

> full moon while our ignorance is like the darkness

> of the night of

> the new moon. To get rid of the ignorance that they

> had, the sages

> sought refuge in Dakshinamurti. Our position is

> like that of the

> man described below:

>

> Transmigratory existence is a forest conflagration.

> The man trapped

> in the forest of ignorance, has fllen onto the flame

> of this fire.

> Should he go forward or backward? In both

> directions, there is

> fire. As such, he is not in a position to go

> forward or backward;

> he cannot also remain where he is. For one in such

> a terrible

> predicament, the only pertinent succour is a rain of

> nectar which

> would put out the fire and also rejuvenate him. The

> teaching about

> the Self is this rain of nectar. To save the

> intensely tormented

> man by raining nectar, Lord Dakshinamurti acted by

> giving up

> silence. For uplifting the sages Sanaka, Sanandana,

> etc., the Lord

> just showed the Chinmudra. With a smiling face, He

> radiated peace.

> By glancing at them, He produced a cool rain of

> nectar. That was

> sufficient for the sages. For us, it is

> insufficient.

>

> So, recognizing the limited competence and

> deplorable attitude of

> people in Kali Yuga, the Lord Himself started from

> the foot of the

> banyan tree and came to the people. The figure of

> Shiva,

> Dakshinamurti, moves about in the world in the form

> of

> Shankaracharya. He manifested in the form of man to

> make His

> teachings appear highly relevant to the people who

> are trapped in

> ignorance. Thus did Dakshinamurti give up His

> silence and His place

> at the foot of the banyan tree and .....//

>

> Speaking about the famous line of a verse:

>

> gurostu maunam vyAkhyAnam, shiShyAstu

> Chhinna-samshayAH

>

> Acharyal explains: There is no need for the disciple

> to ask any

> question. There is no need for the Guru to

> verbalize any reply. If

> one is seated in front of the Guru, Shakti pAta

> takes place; that

> is, the power that is in the Guru descends on the

> disciple. As for

> the dsiciple's doubts, 'the knot of the heart is

> broken and all

> doubts completely vanish'. All this happens

> automatically on one

>

=== message truncated ===

October 23, 2006

Dear Peter-ji

Thank you for your response.

Isnt there sweet irony in that the passage you quote

about "silence" is an excerpt from the book "TALKS

with Ramana Mahatshi"?

I am not denying that some individuals may have been

helped in their understanding by Bhagwan Ramana's

silence - after all He was Divine. Many lay claim to

still being guided by His Spirit and I would never

argue or belittle these claims. Anything is possible

-as respected Subbu-ji says in his post - "these

things can and do happen"

All i can humbly say, is that "Thank God Bhagwan

Ramana spoke, ..and spoke." Then alone do we have

wonderful and inspirational books such as the one you

referenced and exceptional works like Upadesa Sara to

learn from.

My humble pranams

HariOM

Shyam

--- Peter <not_2 (AT) btinternet (DOT) com> wrote:

> Dear Subbu-ji,

>

> Thank you for that excellent post quoting those

> passages on teaching through

> Silence. "Staying mum" has absolutely nothing to

> do with this silence at

> all - it is simply keeping one's mouth shout.

> Anyone who has 'experienced'

> even just a few moments of this silence will know it

> is 'knowledge and

> being' itself, and may well have understood more in

> that few moments than a

> lifetime of studying books and intellectual analysis

> could impart.

>

> We have recently been talking about faith. I have

> only a limited faith in

> reasoning, and limited faith in reasoning with

> faith, as so much of this

> kind of reasoning often tends to justify or prove

> merely what the person

> believed at the outset of their inquiry. As we look

> around the world we see

> so many examples of those with strong beliefs and

> clever intellects using

> logic and reason to justify whatever actions suit

> them. So

> reasoning-with-faith can at times be just as

> fanatical as

> faith-without-reasoning and as heartless as

> reasoning-without-faith.

>

> Much of what we think we know is just an

> accumulation of words and thoughts

> and passages from books.

>

> I place my faith in that Silence; in that current of

> silent-teaching which

> resides in the Heart of all beings. And in this I

> feel there is real hope

> for all beings whatever their spiritual path,

> whatever their outward form of

> belief or religion, or even whether literate or

> illiterate.

>

> I am glad you mention Ramana Maharshi, as He is a

> great example of that

> teaching through silence attributed to

> Dakshinamurti. Here is a passage

> from "Talks with Ramana Maharshi" :

>

> "Language is only a medium for communicating one's

> thoughts to another. It

> is called in only after thoughts arise; other

> thoughts arise after the

> 'I-thought' rises; the 'I-thought' is the root of

> all conversation. When

> one remains without thinking one understands another

> by means of the

> universal language of silence. Silence is

> ever-speaking; it is a perennial

> flow of language; it is interrupted by speaking.

> These words obstruct that

> mute language. There is electricity flowing in a

> wire. With resistance to

> its passage, it glows as a lamp or revolves as a

> fan. In the wire it remains

> as electric energy. Similarly also, silence is the

> eternal flow of language,

> obstructed by words. . . . What one fails to know by

> conversation extending

> to several years can be known in a trice in Silence,

> or in front of Silence

> - e.g., Dakshinamurti, and his four disciples. That

> is the highest and most

> effective language."

> (Talk 246.)

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Peter

>

> ________________________________

>

> advaitin

> [advaitin] On Behalf

> Of subrahmanian_v

> 21 October 2006 19:18

> advaitin

> Re: Ch 6. pt 2

>

> advaitin

> <advaitin%40> , Shyam

> <shyam_md wrote:

> >

> > Dear Harsha-ji

> > The silence of the Ultimate teacher or Ishwara is

> not

> > in the sense of a mum speechlessness that we might

> > understand "silence" to be.

> >

> > If staying mum could teach something effectively,

> > Krishna could have saved himself the effort of

> > eighteen long chapters of almost uninterrupted

> speech,

> > isnt it? And the Upanishads would perhaps have

> blank

> > spaces.

> > After all no teaching of any kind is possible

> without

> > communication.

>

> ShrIgurubhyo NamaH

>

> Namaste,

>

> Here is an excerpt from the book 'Enlightening

> Expositions' p.82

> from the Chapter: 'Where words fail':

> <snip>

>

October 24, 2006

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Dear Subbu-ji

> Thank you for that detailed post with clarifications

> and beautiful references.

> I agree with you that for disciples/jivas of the

> adhikartvam of Sanaka-adi, the chinmudra was

> sufficient for atmajnana.

> Even here, we see that it is what the chinmudra

> implies -i.e. the implied meaning of the chinmudra

> that conveys or communicates the teaching - not the

> silence itself.

>

> To use the expression "maunavyakhyam" to deny Ma

> Shruti Its place as the pramana for this knowledge is

> I think a misunderstanding of what this expression

> signifies, and I think you will agree with me here.

> Silence cannot be a pramana for selfknowledge, however

> eloquent the silence may be.

ShrIgurubhyo NamaH

Namaste Shyam ji,

Thanks for that response. Let me make it clear that no one has ever

even remotely suggested that the Shruti is replaceable or can be

done away with. What i tried to convey is that the teaching of the

Supreme Truth through silence and the realization of It in Supreme

Silence is a perfectly accepted fact in the Upanishads. That is

what, in part, did that quote of Acharya Shankara (in the Sutra

bhashyam)convey.

Now, as to the uttama adhikaris who do not require verbal teaching,

or not even a mudra, as it is known from the BAshkali-BAdhva case of

the Sutra Bhashyam, the point to be kept in mind is that an adhikari

becomes 'uttama' only after passing several stages. As the Gita

teaches, at the end of the sadhana spanning several births one

arrives at the Liberating Realization. An adhikari who has done all

the shravana, pari-prashna, etc. in earlier lives can perfectly be

expected to reach a situation where just silence is enough for him

to trigger the liberating sAkshAtkara. That one sits in front of a

figure called DakshinAmurti has to be understood as one arriving at

that kind of silence in his own mind by adequately practicing the

adhyAtma Yoga of the Upanishads. In that state of Silence (not

sleep), one realizes the Truth and gets liberated. The Silent

Teacher is within oneself and the Silence required to grasp that

Teaching is also in oneself. That is the idea that i tried to

convey.

For those who now require all the teachings, talks, etc. to be heard

over and over again, even in their case, the culminating stage of

sadhana is only a silence. A reading of the adhyAtma Yoga of the

Kathopanishad (II.iii.10,11), for example, with Acharya Shankara's

bhashyam for this makes the point clear about this.

Why else do you think the Gita 13th chapter 24th verse speaks of two

types of adhikaris? Shankara's bhashyam here too is quite

unmistakable. (The Lord is speaking of the means to Atma darshanam

here and not any saguna dhyAnam on a specific deity.) The

Bhashyam lays out the present condition of the sadhana of these two

separate adhikaris in two entirely different ways. All the

commentators have pointed out that even the 'sankhya' yogi who uses

words (as sampled by the Acharya's commentary for this type), will

finally gain the Atma darshanam through the doorway of dhyana only.

I was wondering as to why these commentators have said this while

the Acharya Himself has not said this in this verse. When recently

i was focusing on the Gita 6th chapter message, it suddenly struck

me that these commentators have based their observation on a

specific statement made by Shankara Himself at the very beginning of

the 6th chapter (very first sentence) and just before that in the

5th chapter 27th verse.: And that is: dhyAna-yogam samyagdarshanasya

antarangam. This means: The Lord is teaching here the yoga of

meditation that is the proximate means to Realization. The several

translations that i have seen for this sentence give this same

meaning. In fact a popular Kannada translation says: meditation

is ' sariyAda arivige teeraa hattirada saadhana' (=for Right

Perception it is the closest means). The Hindi translation available

in the Gita Supersite is:

yathArth jnAnke liye jo antarang sAdhan hai us dhyAnyogke sUtraroop……

The Acharya's commentary to the 13th chapter 24th verse is

consistent with this statement that he has made in the 6th chapter.

Let me point out another Upanishadic case. In the Aiterya Upanishad

the case of Sage Vamadeva is mentioned. Vamadeva attained the

liberating realization while in his mother's womb. What sadhana

could he have performed there? What teaching could occur there?

Which teacher could prompt him in such a situation? One can

conclude: Vamadeva had completed the entire sadhana in earlier lives

and despite there being nothing left to be done by him by way of

sadhana, the liberating sAkshAtkAra did not happen to him. He had a

prarabdha to lie in the womb of a mother. When the appropriate time

came, the realization occurred even in the absence of a teacher.

This does not in any way mean that he did not resort to shravana,

etc. in the past.

The point you made about Sw.Dayananda ji's explanation about silence

does not in any way contradict what was mentioned by me. In fact

Acharya Shankara gives that 'silent-teaching' example of the Veda in

that Sutra bhashyam only in the context of explaining the 'beyond-

words' nature of Atman. That Bhagavan Ramana spoke and spoke and the

Upanishads are in themselves a huge volume of words, etc. is not at

all disputed or denied. (Despite the volumes of literature that

Bhagavan composed and lots of speaking he involved in, the ultimate

feeling a reader of Bhagavan gets is: Here is a sage who was

predominantly silent. He was marked out by his Silence.) Their

(words') utility to a sadhaka is specific to the stage where he is.

This alone is what underlies my earlier post on the subject. As

such, there has been no misunderstanding of the `mauna' of

Sridakshinamurti. There is a well-known saying: `maunam sarvArtha-

sAdhakam' = `silence has the power to convey all meaning'. There is

a Kannada saying: summaniru manave, nee brahmanAguve = Remain quiet,

O mind, you will become Brahman.

We (both of us) are not debating about the greatness of maunam vs.

greatness of upanishadic upadesha words. The point I am making is:

words are essential in the beginning but they recede to the

background in the culminating stage of sadhana.

Humble pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

> The vastu itself is beyond words - it is not

> describable directly, words cannot reach it, nor can

> any method of cognition - hence alone it needs to be

> described in an implied sense - no matter what word

> you use to describe it directly, it will fail - this

> is where silence comes in, at least this is how Swami

> Dayananda-ji teaches and to me this seems to be the

> best explanation for this expression.

>

> Certainly for the times we live in (and perhaps even

> the time of Arjuna), adhikartvam is so limited and

> intellects so densely diluted, that the use of words

> for teaching should be considered indispensable.

> The teacher may be great - but the receptacle is

> dirty.

> It needs words - not just words but many words, not

> just many words, but talks, not just talks but many

> many talks! and to be heard over and over at that..

> :-) ..and then alone perhaps something starts to make

> sense..!

>

> Bhagwan Krishna says in the Gita - "pariprashnena

> sevaya" - serve the Guru and ask him questions. And

> the supremely benevolent Acharya even lays out many

> hundred years ago what questions these should be, in

> his commentary - what is bondage? who am i? etc

> - now.. these questions need answers....answers in the

> form of the teaching, in the tradition of the

> sampradaya. Can one imagine what it would be like for

> a student who, listening to Bhagwan Krishna's advice,

> appropriately approaches a Guru with these questions

> and is greeted by a prolonged and resolute silence??

>

> A thousand pranams to the lotus feets of all our Gurus

> who labor tirelessly to give us this liberating

> teaching in words.

>

> Hari OM

> Shyam

>

> --- subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> > advaitin, Shyam

> > <shyam_md@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Harsha-ji

> > > The silence of the Ultimate teacher or Ishwara is

> > not

> > > in the sense of a mum speechlessness that we might

> > > understand "silence" to be.

> > >

> > > If staying mum could teach something effectively,

> > > Krishna could have saved himself the effort of

> > > eighteen long chapters of almost uninterrupted

> > speech,

> > > isnt it? And the Upanishads would perhaps have

> > blank

> > > spaces.

> > > After all no teaching of any kind is possible

> > without

> > > communication.

> >

> > ShrIgurubhyo NamaH

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > Here is an excerpt from the book 'Enlightening

> > Expositions' p.82

> > from the Chapter: 'Where words fail':

> >

> > // In his Brahmasutra Bhashyam III.ii.17, Shankara

> > has recounted an

> > interesting Vedic tale that is pertinent here.

> > Baashkali was

> > desirous of knowing Brahman. So, he approached the

> > enlightened sage

> > BAdhva and requested, 'Please teach me about

> > Brahman'. BAdhva

> > remained silent. BAshkali repeated his appeal but

> > again the sage

> > did not respond. Being earnest, BAshkali asked for

> > the third

> > time, 'Please teach me about Brahman'. The sage

> > said, 'I have

> > already taught you but you have failed to

> > comprehend. This Atma is

> > quiescence. //

> >

> > In the Bhashyam, these are the words that the

> > Acharya writes:

> >

> > //bAshkalinA cha bAdhvaH pRRiShTaH san avachanenaiva

> > brahma provAcha

> > iti shrUyate : 'sa hovAcha adhIhi bhO iti sa tUShNIm

> >

> > babhuuva....upashAnto'yam AtmA iti'.//

> >

> > 'avachanenaiva brahma provAcha' means: 'He taught

> > without speaking

> > at all.'

> >

> > (No editor to my knowledge, has provided the source

> > of this Vedic

> > quote that Shankara uses in this bhashyam. That it

> > is Vedic is not

> > in doubt for Shankara writes: shrUyate.)

> >

> > Regarding the silence of Dakshinamurti, it is not

> > again in doubt

> > that He used any words at all. His Chinmudra was

> > there for people

> > of the Highest adhikAritvam to understand. The

> > books that He has in

> > one hand is for the others without that degree of

> > competence. In

> > His benedictory discourse (delivered, in Kannada, at

> > Bangalore on

> > 2.9.1978)the Jagadguru Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha

> > Swamigal has said:

> >

> > // What was Shankara Bhagavatpada like

> > intrinsically? This has been

> > elucidated in this verse of the Madhaviya Shankara

> > Vijayam:

> >

> > ajnAnAntargahana-patitAn Atma-vidyopadeshaiH

> > trAtum lokAn......

> > muktvA mounam vaTaviTapino mUlato niShpatantI

> > shambhor mUrtischarati bhuvane shankaraachaarya-rUpA

> >

> > (To save, by teachings about the Self, people, who

> > are trapped in

> > the dense forest of ignorance and who are

> > exceedingly tormented by

> > the heat ....Dakshinamurti gave up silence and,

> > coming forth from

> > the foot of the banyan tree, moves about in the

> > world in the form of

> > Shankaracharya.)

> >

> > Dakshinamurti remained seated at the foot of a

> > banyan tree teaching

> > sages, while observing silence. By that very

> > teaching, imparted

> > through silence, the doubts of the sages were set at

> > rest and they

> > became enlightened about the Self. What, however,

> > is the position

> > in Kali Yuga (the present age of unrighteousness?

> >

> > We have ignorance. The sages (spoken of above) too

> > had ignorance.

> > What is the difference between their ignorance and

> > ours? There is

> > darkness on the night of the full moon as also on

> > the night of the

> > new moon; there is no night without darkness. In

> > the darkness of

> > the night of the full moon, we are able to move

> > about on the roads

> > and are also able to perform our routine activities.

> > We, however,

> > have to strain to read a book; that is all. In the

> > darkness of the

> > night of the new moon, if the sky happens to be

> > overcast too, it is

> > not possible for us to walk on the road or to engage

> > in our

> > activities; the question of reading a book does not

> > arise at all.

> >

> > The ignorance of the sages was like the darkness of

> > the night of the

> > full moon while our ignorance is like the darkness

> > of the night of

> > the new moon. To get rid of the ignorance that they

> > had, the sages

> > sought refuge in Dakshinamurti. Our position is

> > like that of the

> > man described below:

> >

> > Transmigratory existence is a forest conflagration.

> > The man trapped

> > in the forest of ignorance, has fllen onto the flame

> > of this fire.

> > Should he go forward or backward? In both

> > directions, there is

> > fire. As such, he is not in a position to go

> > forward or backward;

> > he cannot also remain where he is. For one in such

> > a terrible

> > predicament, the only pertinent succour is a rain of

> > nectar which

> > would put out the fire and also rejuvenate him. The

> > teaching about

> > the Self is this rain of nectar. To save the

> > intensely tormented

> > man by raining nectar, Lord Dakshinamurti acted by

> > giving up

> > silence. For uplifting the sages Sanaka, Sanandana,

> > etc., the Lord

> > just showed the Chinmudra. With a smiling face, He

> > radiated peace.

> > By glancing at them, He produced a cool rain of

> > nectar. That was

> > sufficient for the sages. For us, it is

> > insufficient.

> >

> > So, recognizing the limited competence and

> > deplorable attitude of

> > people in Kali Yuga, the Lord Himself started from

> > the foot of the

> > banyan tree and came to the people. The figure of

> > Shiva,

> > Dakshinamurti, moves about in the world in the form

> > of

> > Shankaracharya. He manifested in the form of man to

> > make His

> > teachings appear highly relevant to the people who

> > are trapped in

> > ignorance. Thus did Dakshinamurti give up His

> > silence and His place

> > at the foot of the banyan tree and .....//

> >

> > Speaking about the famous line of a verse:

> >

> > gurostu maunam vyAkhyAnam, shiShyAstu

> > Chhinna-samshayAH

> >

> > Acharyal explains: There is no need for the disciple

> > to ask any

> > question. There is no need for the Guru to

> > verbalize any reply. If

> > one is seated in front of the Guru, Shakti pAta

> > takes place; that

> > is, the power that is in the Guru descends on the

> > disciple. As for

> > the dsiciple's doubts, 'the knot of the heart is

> > broken and all

> > doubts completely vanish'. All this happens

> > automatically on one

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

October 24, 2006

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

//Bhagwan Krishna says in the Gita - "pariprashnena

sevaya" - serve the Guru and ask him questions. And

the supremely benevolent Acharya even lays out many

hundred years ago what questions these should be, in

his commentary - what is bondage? who am i? etc

- now.. these questions need answers....answers in the

form of the teaching, in the tradition of the

sampradaya. Can one imagine what it would be like for

a student who, listening to Bhagwan Krishna's advice,

appropriately approaches a Guru with these questions

and is greeted by a prolonged and resolute silence??//

A response:

ShrIgurubhyo NamaH

Namaste Shyam ji,

The above words are quite true. They have to be taken as entirely

valid. Here is an instance where `questioning' and `replying' can

both happen in ways quite unpredictable. This is an excerpt from

the book `Edifying Parables'. The portion I am reproducing below is

from the introductory pages titled: `Glimpses of Select Facets of

Acharyal':

The Ideal Disciple Who Became the Perfect Guru:

Shortly after Paramacharyal (HH Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati

Mahaswamigal) had attained Mahasamadhi, a lady from North India came

to Sringeri and had Acharyal's Darshan. She expressed some of her

religious doubts to Him and also said that she had been unable to

get satisfactory replies to them from the numerous scholars and

mendicants she had approached. Acharyal gave His clarifications in

His inimitable style. The lady joyfully stated that her doubts had

been fully resolved.

Prompted by His innate egolessness and very great regard for His

Guru, Acharyal said: `Had you come some time earlier, you could have

had the holy Darshan of My Guru. You had to express your doubts to

Me and hear My replies. But if you had just beheld My Guru, that

would have been sufficient for the answers to have become known to

you. Such was His greatness.'

What Acharyal spoke about His Guru was perfectly applicable to him

too.

The year was 1984. Acharyal was scheduled to leave Sringeri for

Kaladi via Bangalore. A Brahmachari from Rishikesh came a little

after noon for Acharyal's Darshan. Acharyal had already left for

His afternoon bath. The Brahmachari told me (the author), "I have

seven questions pertaining to Yoga and Vedanta which I wish to pose

to His Holiness. They are very important to me. I contacted

numerous scholars, practitioners of Yoga and Sannyasis at

Rishikesh, Uttarkashi, Haridwar and Kashi but none was able to

satisfy me. A scholar at Kashi directed me to Sringeri saying: `If

the Jagadguru of Sringeri cannot satisfactorily answer you then

there is none in the world who can.' That is why I have come most

eagerly to Sringeri."

I told him, "Acharyal will be starting on a tour today. If you wait

here, you can have His Darshan just prior to His departure.

However, there is no time today for you to have a lengthy private

session with Him." He said, "I will gladly wait to behold Him even

if it be for just a moment." He then told me one of the (seven)

questions that he had in mind and requested me to tell Acharyal

about him. I fulfilled his request shortly after Acharyal completed

His BhikshA.

Acharyal said, "The question that he conveyed to you is good and

pertinent. As there is no time to spare today, he could, if he

wishes, meet Me at Bangalore and pose his queries to Me there. If I

happen to know the answers, I shall tell him. Else, I shall readily

admit that I am not in a position to help him."

In about half an hour, Acharyal came out to the front verandah of

Sachidananda Vilas, His abode. Some devotees, inclusive of the

Brahmachari, were there.

The Brahmachari prostrated before Acharyal. Acharyal looked at him

with compassion, raised His right hand in a gesture of blessing and

said, in Hindi, `May you be happy.' He then moved on. I quickly

conveyed to the Brahmachari what Acharyal had told me (in private).

Almost before I finished, he said, "The answers to ALL my questions

became fully known to me the moment His Holiness blessed me."

In the car, of His own accord, Acharyal informed me, " When I saw

that Brahmachari, I was struck with his sincerity. So, I requested

AmbAl, `Please provide him the answers he desires now itself.' The

kind of sincerity that this spiritual aspirant has, deserves to be

rewarded." When I submitted to Acharyal what the Brahmachari had

said, Acharyal joined His palms and said, "AmbAl is so gracious."

(end of the excerpt)

Pranams to all sadhakas,

Subbu

Om Tat Sat

October 24, 2006

Dear Shyam-ji,

I heartily agree with you when you say, "Thank God Bhagwan Ramana spoke..."

In terms of our current theme - the power of Silence which is attribute to

Sri Ramana and Dakshinamurti - it would be more accurate to say "Thank God

Bhagwan Ramana spoke, as well."

Thus there is really no irony at all that for those who were lovers of words

or who did not appreciate the silence of Ramana and other great sages, he

graciously used words to explain that the highest and most direct teaching

was through Silence, Mouna, and that this was the universal language par

excellence (as pointed out in his passage from "Talks").

best wishes,

Peter

________________________________

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of Shyam

23 October 2006 19:26

advaitin

RE: Re: Ch 6. pt 2

Dear Peter-ji

Thank you for your response.

Isnt there sweet irony in that the passage you quote

about "silence" is an excerpt from the book "TALKS

with Ramana Mahatshi"?

Ch 6. pt 2

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads