Re:(correction) Is DHYANA is just a mechanical act of usinga Mantra ?

[Guest guest]

Similarly in the field of Vedanta one must learn the

science and the art of taking the right and correct standpoint from

the Acharya and Shastra, in order to realize the TRUTH.

It should be borne mind that any explanation from Sadhaka's

standpoint cannot be taken as it will mislead the persons.

 

praNAms Sri Srinivas Murthy prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Onceagain kindly accept my heartfelt prostrations for this beautiful

explanation. Yes, the theory about the conditions of vyAvahAra pertains

to brahman & related matters is *shAstra vyavahAra* and to understand this

vyavahAra we have to have AchAryOpadEsha (teachings of guru) & shAstra

pramANa (scriptural authority). If we keep on speculating on our own in

the name of vyavahAra about these subtle issues it would be certainly

misleading and confusing us because those speculations of our conditioned

mind can´t provide us the proper guidance to help us to understand the

nature of ultimate reality.

 

Apart from this, it is improper to assert that any fancy descriptions of

brahman, mAya, avidyA etc. can fit in the name of vyAvahAra & it hardly

affect the doctrine of advaita's ultimate reality since the absolute

reality is something else altogether. The point to be noted here is,

it is only with the help of those transactional descriptions we are trying

to finally transcend vyAvahAra is it not??

 

Thanks onceagain for clarifying the *importance* of *shAstra vyavahAra* in

determining the doctrine of non duality.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Shyam prabhuji:

 

In the case of mySelf this is not the case. The Self already IS. It is

Selfevident. It is everevident and

never nonevident. How can I make mySelf an object of My experience??

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes prabhuji, you are absolutely right..and this is what exactly shankara

categorically declares in sUtra bhAshya. Atman or self is well known and

it is not an adventitious thing for any one since He is self established &

self evident.

 

Shyam prabhuji :

 

That "I am" is an eternal truth. That I am so-and-so is a wring notion

about "I am" This notion arises due to ignorance. This ignorance is

destroyed by knowledge. And this has to be "book"knowledge, or in other

words

knowledge imparted by a qualified teacher to a qualified student, because

in this case, Ma Shruti is the only accepted pramana(means of knowledge)

for this.

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, shankara deals with this pramANa (means of knowledge) too and

clarifies *how shastra can be said as ultimate means of knowledge* when

brahman is not an object of any action (vidhi)...shankara goes on to

clarify that shAstra-s purports are meant to just wipe off the distinctions

superimposed on brahman by avidyA...and Infact, shAstra (scriptures) donot

objectify brahman and teach IT as such & such a thing!! on the other hand

it teaches brahman is no object at all. From this it is very clear that

the shAstra which we have as a valid means of knowledge regarding brahman

holds good as long as it brings on the intuition of brahman by showing how

all dualities are mere appearances superimposed (adhyArOpita) on brahman.

 

Thanks once again for explaining this beautifully in your mail...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Also even any definition including the notion

of "Shastra pramANa" is "speculative," whether we understand or

misunderstand, whether we like or dislike, whether we agree or

disagree.

 

praNAms Sri Ramachandran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

shAstra pramANa is speculative!!!??? prabhuji, I am unable to understand

your opinion here...do you mean to say our AchArya who wrote commentary on

shAstra by speculating on the purport of it?? prabhuji, do you mean to say

when we say *go back to Acharya to see what he offers on duality of

vyavahAra & non duality of pAramArtha* is it mere speculation on our part

in trying to stick to Acharya's words?? What I was trying to convey was

to avoid speculation on our part on certain vedAntic topics especially when

our Acharaya's words are abundantly available & precisely explaining these

concepts beyond doubt..For example, the concept Atman has been explained

transactionally as individual jIva but in absolute reality it is nothing

but witnessing priciple or brahman...if we bring this concept of Atman in

vyavahAra & say brahman is enveloped by avidyA then it is against AchArya

upadEsha & it is undue mixture of vyavahAra & pAramArtika...Atleast in

these issues let us not speculate on our own...let the Acharya-s words do

the talking....Hope you agree with me.

 

Kindly pardon me if at all I hurt your feelings/sentiments.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

fully respect what you say, at the same time, I have to

say that everything that you have written in your posting is

only `speculative!'

 

praNAms Sri Ramachandran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks for your kind (speculative) compliments...let us stop speculating on

speculations and move on the the *reality* of speculation with the help of

speculative shAstra & gurUpadEsha :-))

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar