Mistaken conception of philosophy as 'theoretical'

[Guest guest]

Namashkar Ananda-ji:

 

You state :

 

(I take philosophy to be a living practice of reflective enquiry,

which goes essentially beyond all theories and all academic

jurisdiction.>

I'd say that academics cannot be any more than theoretical

reporters. They cannot do any more than give a merely theoretical

and therefore limited account of some ideas that are used in

philosophy. The actual practice of philosophy is taught and learned

by living individuals, who each reflect profoundly back into their

living individuality, completely beyond the reach of theoretical

ideas and thus beyond the jurisdiction of any academic

institution.)

 

This sounds good !

 

Then you go on to say

 

( Instead, the underlying principles have to be found and realized,

by > the actual practice of reflective enquiry. It's only then that

philosophy is actually alive -- as an enquiry that clarifies a

living understanding, which is then naturally expressed through

clearer feelings, thoughts and actions in personality and world.)

 

This is aldo O.K.

 

BUT THEN YOU GO ON TO MAKE A SWEEPING STATEMENT (i apologize - as

mucg as i valure all your ideas abd your general approach to things)

 

( I find it sad to see so many Indian institutions and individuals

giving in to this degraded > understanding of an enquiry that must

essentially reflect beyond all > instituted jurisdiction in the

world.)

 

 

Now, sir ! I HAVE A BONE TO PICK WITH YOU ! HINDUISM IS NOT A

MERE 'TATTWA' SHASTRA - it is whole way of life! It is called

Sanatana Dharma - the eternal path of right living and right

thinking ! It can never be taught in schools or universities - it

cannot be learned by reading books! Nor do Hindus believe

in 'conversion' - it is a 'Dharma' that has to be practiced

and 'lived' everyday - that is why in the olden days , the

disciples had to live with a spiritual adept ( a Rishi, Muni or an

Acharya ) and seve him daily in the 'gurukula' and learn from the

Master the'real' meaning of Life and its purpose as outlined in the

scriptures. The four disciples of Adi shankara Bhagvadapad learned

all that was needed to be known about Vedanta from the truly living

saint , Adi Shankara Bhagvadapada! that was the beauty of the

Gurukula system ! Even Lord Rama learned the true meaning of Dharma

from the living Sage Vasishta through 'YOGA VASISHTA' !

 

In fact , i am of the firm conviction , 'religion' is not a

science ; it is not even art ; much less a philosophy ! It is

a 'dharma' - that is why i like the term 'spirituality' - because

spirituality cannot be 'packaged' and marketed as part of a

curriculam in Universities .

 

May i then say that Santana Dharma ( Hinduism ) is not a 'tattwa' or

a 'shatra' it is a way of life !

 

May i please share with you this statement from T.S. Eliot (1888-

1965) American-English Harvard educated poet, playwright, and

literary critic, a leader of the modernist movement in literature.

Eliot was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1948. He drew

his intellectual sustenance from the Bhagavad Gita. Over and over

again, whether in The Wasteland, Four Quarters, Ash Wednesday or

Murder in the Cathedral, the influence of Indian philosophy and

mysticism on him is clearly noticeable.

 

 

 

In his poem 'The Dry Salvages', Eliot reflects on Lord Krishna's

meaning:

 

I sometimes wonder if that is what Krishna meant-

Among other things - or one way of putting the same thing:

That the future is a faded song, a Royal Rose or a lavender spray

Of wistful regret for those who are not yet here to regret, 74.

 

He refers to the Gita's central doctrine of nishkama

karma, 'selfless endeavor'

 

i would like to thank Michaelji for bringing out the best in 'ananda-

ji ' -once again, a stimulating and thought provoking post ! Please

forgive me if there is any error in understanding !

 

 

With warmest regards

[Guest guest]

Namaste Anandaji,

Thank you for your considered reply. You seem

to think that there is a great gulf fixed between theory and practice. I

reject that. A student of science acquaints himself with the history of

science in order that he might appreciate the cumulative progress of

insights that have led to the present state of knowledge. He becomes

familiar with the general method whereby positions are transcended in a

continuous process of discovery. The student of philosophy by becoming

aware of the structures by means of which various thinkers have attempted

to make sense of the world becomes enabled to discern the form of his own

mind. Without that discernment no conversion to a higher viewpoint or the

transcending of all possible viewpoints will be possible.

 

Now I am not saying that it is the sine qua non of wisdom but its a help.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Anandaji,

> Thank you for your considered reply.

You seem

> to think that there is a great gulf fixed between theory and

practice. I

> reject that. A student of science acquaints himself with the

history of

> science in order that he might appreciate the cumulative progress

of

> insights that have led to the present state of knowledge. He

becomes

> familiar with the general method whereby positions are transcended

in a

> continuous process of discovery. The student of philosophy by

becoming

> aware of the structures by means of which various thinkers have

attempted

> to make sense of the world becomes enabled to discern the form of

his own

> mind. Without that discernment no conversion to a higher viewpoint

or the

> transcending of all possible viewpoints will be possible.

>

> Now I am not saying that it is the sine qua non of wisdom but its a

help.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

Namaste Michael,

 

I feel that I must disagree somewhat on your viewpoint. The process

used by so called 'scientists' in many case seems to avoid the truth.

For example holding to the idea, for many years, that the Americas

were settled 11,000 years ago, and this while evidence of human

habitation in Texas and Brazil predate that 11,000 year timeline, by

thousands of years.

 

I also disagree that becoming aware of various structures that

various thinkers have used leads to one understanding one's own mind.

 

The mind can never be understood it can really only be observed and

transcended, for it is infinite in illusion. The world also can never

be made sense of as long as the dog has a bent back leg.

 

Many so called great thinkers are very easily duped by other so

called philosophers, so leading to a different track altogether. In

many cases it is just a projection of one'w own ego on to another

being and then praising that being as being great for example.

 

The mind is a constant stream and can only be observed, for as soon

as we observe one thing it has already moved on. The ego mind goes

out and catches hold of thoughts it likes that's all. It is all

illusion and complete delusion, to be transcended by the

question 'Who am I'?. Once this question is asked the rest of the

mind is dismissed................Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste AdiMa, and all friends here...

 

It's been a long time since my last posting here, and unfortunately i

haven't been able to follow all threads closely, so i'm just picking

up the ones i'm specially interested and following it from top to

bottom...

 

This particular issue has been one of (if not "the") the central

issues that led me to this group. This discomfort generated by closed

systems, and the impression that these closed system themselves

represent their own ends, and not the means.

 

Shifting the view sideways, but not really, since we are talkin' about

the means, not the end, i'd like to add that (as it has been

constantly surfacing in the particular closed system i witness as

myself) there can never be any action as a specific outreach of our

inner natures. Dialectically speaking, action is the symptom, and

discomfort (for what ever reason - shall we have the freewill to

discuss about freewill again sadananda-ji? is the cause that leads

to the impression of action.

 

Discomfort from not knowing something, would be dialectically

equivalent to knowledge of non-knowledge. Which means the issue "is"

known, otherwise there would also be (dialectically speaking)

ignorance of ignorance.

 

Being propelled to action by the discomfort of the knowledge of

non-knowledge (which i'll take the liberty of refering to as

primordial discomfort), we erect closed systems, so that we could see

their end before hand - which also means they are all closed circles.

Philosophy, religion etc, should be taken as means - objectivelly

speaking, or result as causally - of reflection from the primordial

discomfort, or from the dialectically (sorry for being annoying)

opposed viewpoint, the impression of action towards knowledge of

knowledge.

 

So i agree completely with AdiMa while she says that all this is

bigger than what any book or system can contain. It is a whole life

witnessing events from an assumed first-person view point that is the

lesson. Witnessing dharmic behavior dispells the discomfort caused by

its dialectical opposite, fact which in turn gives the impression of

action towards liberation.

 

So now i have to agree to Michael-ji while stating that as part of the

greater course of events been witnessed, philosophy as a concept does

gives different view points thru which the lesson can be contemplated

upon. This gradually sets the borders between the absolute lesson and

the misinterpretations assumed by the partiality of the student.

 

Until maturity enough has risen, and all discomforts may have lead to

the impression that this big lesson itself is a circle, it is a circle

impossible to be stepped out from.

 

Comprised as the unnameable period of time between birth and death,

and as seen from an impartial (absolute) point of view, while having

its end seen before hand (or too late afterwards), the lesson pushes

the seer (having the impression of action) to step out - as it might

have happened from within all the other circles (within circles)

around the seer, that the seer has stepped out from.

 

And so on, until this lesson is conversely seen as the circle

comprised between birth and death, with its end foreseen, its all

happening. It was never created only from within the standpoint of the

ultimate obersver standing outside the ultimate circle.

[Guest guest]

Dear Michael,

 

In your message #34067 of Nov 24, you raise the question of how

theory and practice are related. To me, this is an interesting

question, which is rather differently answered in the external

enterprise of modern physics and the reflective enquiry of a

non-dual philosophy.

 

In modern physics, theory and practice are more separate. A theory

lays down hypotheses, from which it deduces predictions and thus

enables prescriptions and plans for action toward desired

objectives. To put such a theory into practice, a mechanical

technology is used to test the predictions and to try out

prescriptions and plans for effective action. Here, mind is involved

in conceiving theories that must be tested and applied mechanically.

The practical application is through external instruments and

machines, which work independently of mind.

 

In Advaita philosophy, theoretical ideas are used to reflect an

investigating mind back into its own foundations. If the

investigation is genuine, the mind then throws its own beliefs into

question. Mistaken beliefs and misunderstandings are thus clarified,

on the way to truer knowing. That makes the investigation practical.

Truer knowing is then naturally expressed in clearer feelings,

thoughts and actions -- without the need for an implementing

technology that must be added on.

 

When mind enquires to find fault with some other mind's beliefs, the

findings are then theories for the other mind to consider. But when

one's own beliefs are thrown into question, the enquiry is then a

very practical experiment, to find what knowledge practically

results.

 

As seen from outside, the reflective questions of philosophy appear

to be theoretical. But when they are asked genuinely, within, they

turn out to be quite practical. In fact, they are the living

practice of philosophy, where the distinction of theory and practice

is thus ultimately overcome.

 

So I agree with your objection to thinking 'that there is a great

gulf fixed between theory and practice'. No quarrel here, so far as

yours truly is concerned.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Welcome back, Felipe! It is nice to see you back in the group in

your full form. now that Spring is here , can Winter be far behind !

I mean our mutual Friend , Chitta - i miss his lively and engaging

posts . This is a 'thread' he would have loved to comment on!

 

Anyway, thanks for your kind comments . i just posted my 2 cents .

Subsequently , however , after reading Anandaji's latest post on

this subject , i kind of tend to agree with him and michalji

that ' 'that there is a great gulf fixed between theory and

practice'. True , is it not ? How many of us really practice what we

preach or preach what we don't really practise ?

 

SRI anandaji brought out some important differences between

Metaphysics amd Philosophy etc .

 

Here , i would like to quote a passage i read during my RECENT web

surfing ENDEAVORS ...

 

" Where metaphysics is concerned with what is, ethics is concerned

with what should be. Ethics asks: what is the highest good, and how

to go about attaining it? In India, metaphysical speculation and

intuitive experience had discovered that the true nature of human

life was to be found in the Atman -- pure being, awareness and

bliss. All of the problems associated with life come from the

separation from Atman; this separation is due to ignorance of this

true nature, and the resultant clinging to the limited identity of

the ego-self, with all of its cravings and attachments. If this ego-

self could be overcome or eliminated, and pure Atman realized, one

would attain moksha, liberation into the boundless bliss of Pure

Being. This is the highest good in Indian thought, and all other

ideas of good and bad derive from it; good is what leads to moksha,

bad is what traps us in samsara, the phenomenal world of death and

rebirth. "

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~delia5/pagan/epw/upanish1.htm

 

Felipe , the following words from Swami Vivekananda made a great

impression on me when i was growing up in India ;

 

""Each soul is *potentially divine.* The goal is to manifest this

divinity within, by controlling nature, external and internal. Do

this either by work, or worship, or psychic control, or philosophy -

by one, or more, or all of these - and be free. This is the whole of

religion. Doctrines, or dogmas, or rituals, or books, or temples, or

forms, are but secondary details."

 

I would like to coNclude by quoting this favorite verse of mine from

the Mundaka upanishads

 

Mundaka Upanishad [iII:i:1]:

 

dvaa suparNaa sayujaa sakhaayaa

samana.n vR^ikshaM parishhasvajaate .

tayoranyaH pippala.n svaadvatti

anashnananyo.abhichaakasiiti ..

 

"Two birds, companions always united, cling to the self-same tree. Of

these two, the one eats the sweet fruit, and the other looks on

without eating."

 

Which bird would you like to be ?

 

Aum Shanti! Aum shanti! Aum Shntihi!!11

 

love and regards

 

best wishes for the coming holiday season !

 

 

PS BTW , my eye surgery has not corrected my vision one bit as i

continue to make many errors while typing ! people like me do really

need 'divya chaksus ' the divine eyes of the scriptures to read

between the lines! Smile !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Felipe" <fcrema wrote:

>

> Namaste AdiMa, and all friends here...

>

> It's been a long time since my last posting here, and

unfortunately i

> haven't been able to follow all threads closely, so i'm just

picking

> up the ones i'm specially interested and following it from top to

> bottom...

>

> This particular issue has been one of (if not "the") the central

> issues that led me to this group. This discomfort generated by

closed

> systems, and the impression that these closed system themselves

> represent their own ends, and not the means.

>

> Shifting the view sideways, but not really, since we are talkin'

about

> the means, not the end, i'd like to add that (as it has been

> constantly surfacing in the particular closed system i witness as

> myself) there can never be any action as a specific outreach of our

> inner natures. Dialectically speaking, action is the symptom, and

> discomfort (for what ever reason - shall we have the freewill to

> discuss about freewill again sadananda-ji? is the cause that

leads

> to the impression of action.

>

> Discomfort from not knowing something, would be dialectically

> equivalent to knowledge of non-knowledge. Which means the

issue "is"

> known, otherwise there would also be (dialectically speaking)

> ignorance of ignorance.

>

> Being propelled to action by the discomfort of the knowledge of

> non-knowledge (which i'll take the liberty of refering to as

> primordial discomfort), we erect closed systems, so that we could

see

> their end before hand - which also means they are all closed

circles.

> Philosophy, religion etc, should be taken as means - objectivelly

> speaking, or result as causally - of reflection from the primordial

> discomfort, or from the dialectically (sorry for being annoying)

> opposed viewpoint, the impression of action towards knowledge of

> knowledge.

>

> So i agree completely with AdiMa while she says that all this is

> bigger than what any book or system can contain. It is a whole life

> witnessing events from an assumed first-person view point that is

the

> lesson. Witnessing dharmic behavior dispells the discomfort caused

by

> its dialectical opposite, fact which in turn gives the impression

of

> action towards liberation.

>

> So now i have to agree to Michael-ji while stating that as part of

the

> greater course of events been witnessed, philosophy as a concept

does

> gives different view points thru which the lesson can be

contemplated

> upon. This gradually sets the borders between the absolute lesson

and

> the misinterpretations assumed by the partiality of the student.

>

> Until maturity enough has risen, and all discomforts may have lead

to

> the impression that this big lesson itself is a circle, it is a

circle

> impossible to be stepped out from.

>

> Comprised as the unnameable period of time between birth and death,

> and as seen from an impartial (absolute) point of view, while

having

> its end seen before hand (or too late afterwards), the lesson

pushes

> the seer (having the impression of action) to step out - as it

might

> have happened from within all the other circles (within circles)

> around the seer, that the seer has stepped out from.

>

> And so on, until this lesson is conversely seen as the circle

> comprised between birth and death, with its end foreseen, its all

> happening. It was never created only from within the standpoint of

the

> ultimate obersver standing outside the ultimate circle.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shrimati Dhyanasaraswati,

 

You wrote (message #34071, Nov 24):

 

"Now, sir! I HAVE A BONE TO PICK WITH YOU! HINDUISM IS NOT A MERE

'TATTWA' SHASTRA - it is a whole way of life! It is called Sanatana

Dharma - the eternal path of right living and right thinking!... it

is a 'Dharma' that has to be practiced and 'lived' everyday....

 

"In fact, I am of the firm conviction, 'religion' is not a science;

it is not even art; much less a philosophy! It is a 'dharma'.... May

I then say that Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) is not a 'tattwa' or a

'shastra' it is a way of life!"

 

I'm not quite clear what the bone of contention is. From your

message, I gather it arises from my regret (expressed in message

#34066, Nov 24) at seeing "so many Indian institutions and

individuals giving in to this degraded understanding" of philosophy

as a theoretical subject that is taught in academic institutions.

And you seem to feel that my regret here is a slight to an ancient

Hindu way of life that you call 'Sanatana Dharma'.

 

In reply, I should first clarify that what I regret is not the

ancient Hindu tradition, but rather a degraded understanding that

modern academics teach about this old tradition and its timeless

philosophy.

 

And the regret applies to European and other traditions as well. My

view is that all traditions have, from ancient times, been founded

on a timeless philosophy from which they originate and draw support.

 

And my particular regret for India is that we are undermining our

ancient traditions here, by aping from the West a degraded

understanding of that timeless philosophy, which is the source and

living ground of all traditions everywhere.

 

But having said this, I must admit to having a difference with you,

in particular in the use of the word 'tattva-shastra'. I do not use

this word to denote a shastra or a science that describes many

tattvas or underlying principles from which the physical and mental

world arises. Instead, I use this word in a more extreme sense, to

denote that ultimate science which investigates a single, non-dual

truth -- where all the world's appearances are found dissolved, into

their one reality.

 

When the words 'tattva-shastra' or 'philosophy' are used in this

ultimate sense, what they decide is indeed beyond a way of life that

differs from other ways and changes in the course of time.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Dear All:

 

i have been reading this 'thread' over and over again espeacially

Sri ANANDAJI'S responses to Michael-ji's posts- only because i did

not want to miss any 'wisdom ' underlying Anandaji's insights on

this thread .

 

i asked myself this question over and over again after reading

Ananda-ji's posts - why am i ( a very mudane and ordinary woman) so

attracted to the 'UPanishads' ? Is it because of its 'metaphysical '

content or is it because of its hard core philosophical truths ? Let

me confess -Dear All ! i love simply the 'narrative' style in which

great Truths like 'Tat Twam Asi' are explained in the upanishads

 

For instance , read this seemingly simple dialogue between Uddalaka

Muni and his son, Svetakeu :

 

13.1. "Place this salt in water, and in the morning come to me." He

did exactly so, and he said to him, "the salt that you put in the

water last night, bring it hither. But while he grasped for it he

could not find it, since it had completely dissolved.

 

2. "Take a sip from the edge of it. What is there?"

"Salt."

"Take a sip from the middle. What is there?"

"Salt."

"Take a sip from the far edge. What is there?"

"Salt."

"Set it aside and come to me." And [the boy] did exactly that,

[saying] "It is always the same."

He said to him, "Being is indeed truly here, dear boy, but you do

not perceive it here.

 

That which is the finest essence, the whole universe has That as

its soul. That is Reality, That is the Self, and That is you,

Svetaketu!" ( Tat Twam Asi! )

 

Now , you can read all the Bhasyas , all the sutras , all the

commentaries by different Anandas ( Pamarthananda , Krishnananda ,

Chinmayananda etc etc etc etc ) on this Mahavakya but nothing can

match the 'original' text as this simple dialogue between Uddalaka

muni and Svetaketu! ! That is the intrinsic beauty of the

Upanishads - its narrative style and the Characters themselves are

the instruments through which great Truths are revealed ! Yes! It is

the stories and the characters that appeal to me the most more than

the dry philosophical truths ..

 

Then again take the case of Jabala and Satyakama ( another story

from Chandogya upanishads ) - in this story , Mother Jabala hides

the truth from her son Satyakama his lineage ( who his father is) -

this may seem prepostrous to some - how can a great treatise have

characters such as Jabla who hide the truth from their own son ?

There again lies the beauty of the upanishads - that is the moral

fibre is very weak in all humans and the real knowledge therefore is

to know who you are rather than to know where you have descended

from ! ( the lineage is of no consequence)

 

Another favorite story of mine is the one regarding the meaning

of 'Da' -from the THE BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHADS - How the three

groups of people according to their gunas interpreted this word 'Da'-

The devas who lacked self control interpreted it as "Dama", the

Rakshasas who were notorious for cruelty, interpreted it as "Daya"

or compassion, and the men whose characteristic as the possessive

instinct interpreted it as "Dana" or charity. A great revelation but

explained with the help of a sound made by 'thunder' - Ds, Da,

Da .... Poet and philosopher T.s. Eliot was so inspired by this

story of the Tthunder from the Brihadaranyaka upanishad that he

quoted it in his poem in his poem 'Waste land ' !

 

The point i am trying to make is how many of us can really

understand the 'Upanishads' without the help of these stories ?

Honestly, i cannot !

 

Rabindranath Tagore had the right idea when he wrote this forword to

Sri Radhakrishnan's translation of upanishads

 

"This has been possible because the upaniShads are based not upon

theological reasoning, but on experience of spiritual life. And life

is not dogmatic; in it opposing forces are reconciled - ideas of non-

dualism and dualism, the infinite and the finite, do not exclude

each other. Moreover the upaniShads do not represent the spiritual

experience of any one great individual, but of a great age of

enlightenment which has a complex and collective manifestation, like

that of the starry world. Different creeds may find their sustenance

from them, but can never set sectarian boundaries round them;

generations of men in our country, no mere students of philosophy,

but seekers of life's fulfilment, may make living use of the texts,

but can never exhaust them of their freshness of meaning.

 

For such men the upaniShad-ideas are not wholly abstract, like those

belonging to the region of pure logic. They are concrete, like all

truths realized through life. "

 

Aum Shanthi! Shanti ! Shantihi!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

[Guest guest]

Ananda-ji ;

 

i apologize - as my little grandson would say ' it was a mistake' -

an error in comrehension . i went back and re read your original

post . The reson why i misunderstood your words were because i split

the words Tattwa and Shastra into two separate words and

interpreted 'tattwa' to mean fundamental cosmic principles and

shastra to mean any systemic teaching or science . When interpreted

thus , i wondered why Anandaji is describing the 'perennial wisdom'

or timeless philosophy of vedanta in these terms and reducing it to

a mere Science or statement of principles .

 

now , i see the 'bigger' picture :

 

i reproduce for the benefit of the readers your original passage

 

"In Sanskrit, the underlying principles of being are called 'tattvas'

(literally 'that-nesses'). And the metaphysical aspect of philosophy

is thus described by the term 'tattva-shastra' (literally, the

'science of that-ness or underlying principle').

 

I find it useful here to note that 'tattva-shastra' is a perfectly

general and neutral term for philosophy, which is specifically

associated with the jnyana marga (the way of knowing) and hence with

epistemology. Metaphysics and epistemology are thus taken

together -- not as opposing compartments, but as complementary

approaches in the one same subject of philosophy. In the same way

that being (sat) and knowing (cit) are taken to be complementing

aspects of a single truth."

 

i guess i did not fully understand in what context Sri Anandaji used

the word 'epistemology' - the theory of knowledge ... To many of us

brought up in the Hindu tradition , the upanishads are

the 'ultimate 'in knowledge - no questions asked - simply accept the

Mahavakyas to be 'true ' and just contemplate on it ..

 

One thing is for sure - if i want to learn about the scriptures (

hindu) , i would never go to an institution where 'religion' is

taught as a subject . Rather , i would go to a place like

Thiruvannamalai and sit in the meditation hall where Sri Ramana's

statue is installed and contemplate on his timeless teachings - and

do seva in the ashram .

 

i guess i must concede that you are perhaps right in your

judgement :

 

( In reply, I should first clarify that what I regret is not the

ancient Hindu tradition, but rather a degraded understanding that

modern academics teach about this old tradition and its timeless

philosophy.

 

And the regret applies to European and other traditions as well. My

view is that all traditions have, from ancient times, been founded

on a timeless philosophy from which they originate and draw support.

 

And my particular regret for India is that we are undermining our

ancient traditions here, by aping from the West a degraded

understanding of that timeless philosophy, which is the source and

living ground of all traditions everywhere.)

 

Therefore ,

 

"The truth of the Self cannot be fully understood when taught by an

ignorant man, for opinions regarding it, not founded in knowledge,

vary one from another. Subtler than the subtlest is this Self, and

beyond all logic. Taught by a teacher who knows the Self and Brahman

as one, a man leaves vain theory behind and attains to truth."

 

Yours truly is waiting for such a Teacher .

 

Aum Shanti! Shanti! Shantihi !!

 

ps btw , what is this fuss about 'AUDARYA ' fellowship reproducing

artcles from Advaitin list ? fdo copyright and patent laws apply to

timeless philosophy too ? i love michealji's sense of humor - rather

i would go one step further and award the 'humanitarian' award to

Swami Ramdev for his self-less service to humanity in the

dissemination of a timeless philosophy! smile!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

 

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

>

> Namaste Shrimati Dhyanasaraswati,

>

> You wrote (message #34071, Nov 24):

>

> "Now, sir! I HAVE A BONE TO PICK WITH YOU! HINDUISM IS NOT A MERE

> 'TATTWA' SHASTRA - it is a whole way of life! It is called

>

> I'm not quite clear what the bone of contention is. From your

> message, I gather it arises from my regret (expressed in message

> #34066, Nov 24) at seeing "so many Indian institutions and

> individuals giving in to this degraded understanding" of

philosophy

> as a theoretical subject that is taught in academic institutions.

> And you seem to feel that my regret here is a slight to an ancient

> Hindu way of life that you call 'Sanatana Dharma'.

>

> In reply, I should first clarify that what I regret is not the

> ancient Hindu tradition, but rather a degraded understanding that

> modern academics teach about this old tradition and its timeless

> philosophy.

>

> And the regret applies to European and other traditions as well.

My

> view is that all traditions have, from ancient times, been founded

> on a timeless philosophy from which they originate and draw

support.

>

> And my particular regret for India is that we are undermining our

> ancient traditions here, by aping from the West a degraded

> understanding of that timeless philosophy, which is the source and

> living ground of all traditions everywhere.

>

> But having said this, I must admit to having a difference with

you,

> in particular in the use of the word 'tattva-shastra'. I do not

use

> this word to denote a shastra or a science that describes many

> tattvas or underlying principles from which the physical and

mental

> world arises. Instead, I use this word in a more extreme sense, to

> denote that ultimate science which investigates a single, non-dual

> truth -- where all the world's appearances are found dissolved,

into

> their one reality.

>

> When the words 'tattva-shastra' or 'philosophy' are used in this

> ultimate sense, what they decide is indeed beyond a way of life

that

> differs from other ways and changes in the course of time.

>

> Ananda

>