Guest guest Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams To all. Thus Spake A Vedantin The fundamental thing is to get a knowledge of truth by your own experience and reason; to say that Sankara writes the truth implies that you already know the truth, and hence can certify Sankara's work.. Until then you have no right to say whether his work is true. : God's omnipresence at the same time. Unless you yourself became God and are everywhere present with him simultaneously you have no possible means of verifying the truth of this doctrine. Therefore we say "Atman is God, and God is Atman." .) Men who have made similar inquiries, i.e. the rishis have found the same Vedantic truth but must inquire independently and verify it for yourself. The sages and scriptures may teach the same thing but you must prove it yourself by facts. I do not quote books solely to prove my position: that is the fallacy of authoritarianism. I quote them merely to show that what I have previously proved by facts and reason is all the same not inconsistent with the highest authorities. Scriptures may be quoted for the common people who are unable to think well, but for educated persons the final appeal should be to reason. Scriptures may be quoted for the common people who are unable to think well, but for educated persons the final appeal should be to reason. Those dualists who say God is unchanging but his environment (the world) is changing, and that the world is in or part of God, are inconsistent. For how can a part change if the whole is changeless? Anyone can quote authorities or give interpretations agreeable to oneself and these methods are proved to be fallacies in reasoning. This is admitted universally by rational thinkers both Eastern and Western, for any one in the street can say that what another says agrees or disagrees with one's view. This is what we find even among the most uncultured of men. Therefore, such methods are characterized in Sanskrit as childish or boyish. This is not Vedanta. What is fundamental in Vedanta is to answer the question: How do we know that any authority, interpretation or yogic experience reveals the Truth? Till this is proved the quoting of authority, interpretations and so forth are as the Upanishads say the play of children, howsoever learned the scholar that deals with them may be. They are of use for children only. By this method men deceive themselves and others too. Truth seekers do not have recourse to these methods. Till the Truth of any authoritative statement or interpretation or yogic experience is proved what is said or done is only child's play and self-deception. This Truth is Vedanta. (133.) I do not quote books solely to prove my position: that is the fallacy of authoritarianism. I quote them merely to show that what I have previously proved by facts and reason is all the same not inconsistent with the highest authorities. (136.) My opponents accuse me of also using quotations. That is true. But it would only be a fallacy if I depended on them to prove my case, which I do not. I first prove my case by reason and quote afterwards. (139.) Advaita goes to the very root where there is nothing more to doubt, nothing more to question. (142.) It is not denied to the philosopher to quote the names of famous men in his support so long as he proves his case first and then only brings in names. (150.) We should say; Because this doctrine is true, and Bible teaches it, then the Bible is true. We should not say: Because the Bible teaches this doctrine, therefore the latter is true. (151.) We are not to take any doctrine to be truth merely because it is very old or because it is very new. (160.) Religion is a fable for the use of' mental children. When they grow up they can discard religion and use reason in Vedanta. (436.) Never talk of philosophy to anyone unless he seeks and wants it, or unless he is bothered with doubts. If you do, you will be looked on as a madman or fool and do no good at all. (423.) The facts of Vedanta are open to all but the individual capacity to understand them will naturally vary. This the only esotericism of Vedanta. (442.) Only when a man begins to express doubts, or says he wants to know the highest truth while admitting his ignorance of it, should you talk Vedanta with him. (455.) The Truth of Vedanta is so strong that it makes one feel impregnable in argument and invulnerable in exposition. Hence it gives intellectual courage. (475.) Science is true so far as the world of science is concerned, yoga is true so far as I sit quiet in meditation: the yogi's experiences are not lies but truly described; all these are however only relative truths, true only from a certain narrow point of view, they come and go, they contradict each other; whereas we seek the Supreme Truth which is higher than all these, which is uncontradictable and does not conflict with anything else. (495.) Why do you refuse to read Ramanuja? It is not a waste of time. The Vedantic student should be willing to examine everything, to inquire into all views and then only reject those that are unproved. (606.) Reasoning in Advaita is thinking applied to all three states to prove something. It is in this sense that Sankara used the word, which pundits do not grasp. (608.) Reasoning must not be confused with intellectual argument. The latter is used by lawyers for logical building up of evidence of seen objects only but the former is used in philosophy to refer to evidence of all three states (avastatraya). Reason (Buddhi) sees the appearance and disappearance of objects including ego; whereas logical intellect (manas) is limited to them alone. (615.) Vichara means that without thinking about the truth of it you cannot attain it. The mind must be used in reasoning: it is kept quiet in yoga, there is no possibility of knowing the final truth, because the instrument of knowledge--the mind--is not functioning. Vichara depends entirely upon Buddhi, i.e. reason. THE END I hope the members will relish the above stated thoughts. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 Sreenivasa-ji ! a Fine attempt at Semantics . Sreenivasa -ji, did you know that you used the first pronoun ( I- That too in capital letter obeying the rules of Grammar BUT not in tune with that humble bhava of a vedantic philosopher ) Ten times in this post wheras another vedanti in this group in post number 33931 ( shraddha by Ananda-ji) did not even use the entity 'I' once ? so, who do we take seriously ? This was just a light-hearted comment ! Now, SREENIVASA-JI, why should we read Ramanuja's works if you discourage us from reading Shankara's works ? in fact , why should we read at all ? Verse 6 of Viveka chudamani reads Let people quote the Scriptures and sacrifice to the gods, let them perform rituals and worship the deities, but there is no Liberation without the realisation of one's identity with the Atman, no, not even in the lifetime of a hundred Brahmas put together. Rest is silence ! advaitin, sreenivasa murthy <narayana145 wrote: > > H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy > Pranams To all. > > Thus Spake A Vedantin > > The fundamental thing is to get a knowledge of truth by your own experience and reason; to say that Sankara writes the truth implies that you already know the truth, and hence can certify Sankara's work.. Until then you have no right to say whether his work is true. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 >>> Now, SREENIVASA-JI, why should we read Ramanuja's works if you discourage us from reading Shankara's works ? in fact , why should we read at all ? <<< ------------------------- namaste Sarasvati-ji, I believe Sreenivasa-ji is qouting from the works of V.Subrahmanya Iyer. Sreenivasa-ji has very consistently reminded us to focus our understanding on the works of Adi Sankara and Suresvara's Naiskarmya Siddhi. There were many statements in that post that resonated deeply with me. Just one, for example, from many: "(608.) Reasoning must not be confused with intellectual argument. The latter is used by lawyers for logical building up of evidence of seen objects only but the former is used in philosophy to refer to evidence of all three states (avastatraya). Reason (Buddhi) sees the appearance and disappearance of objects including ego; whereas logical intellect (manas) is limited to them alone." It seems to me that "Reason (Buddhi)" ascertains the truth within all sides of an argument/issue. "Logical intellect (manas)" so often is invested with merely defending its own point of view and devaluing those of the opponent. (This is a general comment, by the way. I am not attributing the latter to you.) Best wishes, Peter ________________________________ advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf Of dhyanasaraswati 31 October 2006 12:52 advaitin Re: Thus Spake A Vedantin Sreenivasa-ji ! a Fine attempt at Semantics . Sreenivasa -ji, did you know that you used the first pronoun ( I- That too in capital letter obeying the rules of Grammar BUT not in tune with that humble bhava of a vedantic philosopher ) Ten times in this post wheras another vedanti in this group in post number 33931 ( shraddha by Ananda-ji) did not even use the entity 'I' once ? so, who do we take seriously ? This was just a light-hearted comment ! Now, SREENIVASA-JI, why should we read Ramanuja's works if you discourage us from reading Shankara's works ? in fact , why should we read at all ? <snip> __ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 Peter-ji ! I owe a big apology to Sreenivasa-ji - i spoke in haste ! Fools rush in where angels fear to trad! Sreenivasa-ji, will you forgiv your 'mataji' ? i had no clue that Sreenivasaji was quoting from a book by sri Subramanya Iyer ! just for commiting this grave error, i am going to observe silence for two weeks! You know how hard it is for me to do that! that is real punishment ! forgive me please ! btw , i just received the great news that my daughter is expecting a female child in early march as per sonogram results. You all know i already have two grandsons and i was oraying for a granddaughter! Durga mata has answered my prayers! folks, please send the names of girl babies ( preferably hindu) - it shoulkd be easy to spell , easy to pronounce for americans and must sound sweet and rhyme withlast name Aggarwal! send it to my email address ! thanks ! once again, my apologies to Sreenivasa and thanks Peterji for your true friendship ! love and regards advaitin, "Peter" <not_2 wrote: > > >>> Now, SREENIVASA-JI, why should we read Ramanuja's works if you > discourage us from reading Shankara's works ? in fact , why should > we read at all ? <<< > ------------------------- > > namaste Sarasvati-ji, > > I believe Sreenivasa-ji is qouting from the works of V.Subrahmanya Iyer. > > Sreenivasa-ji has very consistently reminded us to focus our understanding > on the works of Adi Sankara and Suresvara's Naiskarmya Siddhi. > > There were many statements in that post that resonated deeply with me. Just > one, for example, from many: > > "(608.) Reasoning must not be confused with intellectual argument. The > latter is used by lawyers for logical building up of evidence of seen > objects only but the former is used in philosophy to refer to evidence of > all three states (avastatraya). Reason (Buddhi) sees the appearance and > disappearance of objects including ego; whereas logical intellect (manas) is > limited to them alone." > > It seems to me that "Reason (Buddhi)" ascertains the truth within all sides > of an argument/issue. "Logical intellect (manas)" so often is invested with > merely defending its own point of view and devaluing those of the opponent. > (This is a general comment, by the way. I am not attributing the latter to > you.) > > Best wishes, > > Peter > > > ________________________________ > > advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf > Of dhyanasaraswati > 31 October 2006 12:52 > advaitin > Re: Thus Spake A Vedantin > > Sreenivasa-ji ! > > a Fine attempt at Semantics . > > Sreenivasa -ji, did you know that you used the first pronoun ( I- > That too in capital letter obeying the rules of Grammar BUT not in > tune with that humble bhava of a vedantic philosopher ) Ten times > in this post wheras another vedanti in this group in post number > 33931 ( shraddha by Ananda-ji) did not even use the entity 'I' > once ? > > so, who do we take seriously ? > > This was just a light-hearted comment ! > > Now, SREENIVASA-JI, why should we read Ramanuja's works if you > discourage us from reading Shankara's works ? in fact , why should > we read at all ? > > <snip> > __ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 dear Saraswati-ji, If you observe silence for the next two weeks you will be punishing us, as well. I very much enjoy the good will and love which comes through your posts. Congratulations on your good news. best wishes, Peter ________________________________ advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf Of dhyanasaraswati 01 November 2006 13:19 advaitin Re: Thus Spake A Vedantin Peter-ji ! I owe a big apology to Sreenivasa-ji - i spoke in haste ! Fools rush in where angels fear to trad! Sreenivasa-ji, will you forgiv your 'mataji' ? i had no clue that Sreenivasaji was quoting from a book by sri Subramanya Iyer ! just for commiting this grave error, i am going to observe silence for two weeks! You know how hard it is for me to do that! that is real punishment ! <snip> 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.