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

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji:

 

Everything that we write, talk and discuss (and also debate) is

vyavahara only. 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. This is our limited vision of the TRUTH! As long as we are

in the discussion mode, we will likely be getting only the limited

vision.

 

Do we have any options other than speculating our views or

speculating on our understanding of the Shastras or speculating our

understanding of acharya's philosophy. Ofcourse, not! Your final

point is quite precise summary of the above fact - " it is only with

the help of those transactional descriptions we are trying to

finally transcend vyAvahAra. Yes, indeed.

 

We should remember our childhood days when we try to walk, talk, and

write? Our learning and growing is a gradual continuous process till

we transcend vyAvahAra.

 

I am sorry to make another speculation of my understanding or

misunderstanding!

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: I have stated my opinion and corrections are welcome, but I

will not pursue no further than what I have already stated.

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> 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??

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

 

My full endorsement is there with you view which shows humility

which is essential to the sadhaka.

 

Sri Ramakrishna used to say- Everyone says that his watch 'alone'

gives the correct time.

 

What to do?

 

Yours in Sri RAmakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran

wrote:

>

> Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji:

>

> Everything that we write, talk and discuss (and also debate) is

> vyavahara only. 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. This is our limited vision of the TRUTH! As long as we

are

> in the discussion mode, we will likely be getting only the limited

> vision.

>

> Do we have any options other than speculating our views or

> speculating on our understanding of the Shastras or speculating

our

> understanding of acharya's philosophy. Ofcourse, not! Your final

> point is quite precise summary of the above fact - " it is only

with

> the help of those transactional descriptions we are trying to

> finally transcend vyAvahAra. Yes, indeed.

>

> We should remember our childhood days when we try to walk, talk,

and

> write? Our learning and growing is a gradual continuous process

till

> we transcend vyAvahAra.

>

> I am sorry to make another speculation of my understanding or

> misunderstanding!

>

> With my warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> Note: I have stated my opinion and corrections are welcome, but I

> will not pursue no further than what I have already stated.

>

> advaitin, bhaskar.yr@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > 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??

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear Bhaskar Prabhuji:

 

Once again, we are speculating our understanding of what each one of

us say! The problem is obviously that we convey our understanding

using words. It is certainly difficult for me to explain what

I `really' meant using just words and similar is your problem.

Everyone who writes and discusses on metaphysical philosophy has the

same problem. Everything that we write in `words' using any language

including Sanskrit or English is speculative. As a matter of fact,

the meaning of the word, `speculative' is itself speculative.

Honestly, you are only speculating on what I have said. Let us take

sometime to contemplate and try to understand the Shastras and the

Acharya. Let us also accept the fact that each one of our

understanding will likely be different due to our limited vision of

the Shastras and the Acharya. Unfortunately I have to use the words

that I know to explain my understanding and it seems that you

disagree. I 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!'

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: This really happened one of the Bhagavad Gita discourses

conducted by Swami Chinmayanandaji. One of the persons sitting in

the front row came to Swamiji at the end of the meeting and proudly

declared –"Swamiji, I have gone through Bhagavad Gita ten times."

Swamiji with all smiles said: " I am glad to know that have gone

through Gita ten times; did Gita go through you at least once?"

Swamiji's profound reply does apply to all of us who have studied

the Shastras and the Acharya!

 

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> 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??