Guest guest Posted April 30, 2005 Report Share Posted April 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Durga " <durgaji108> wrote: ><<sni>> > Dear Mr. E, > > Sorry to disappoint you, but I had never heard of Ramanuja and had > to look him up. It seems that he developed his own system, of > understanding, which must have been somewhat different from > Shankara's. I've never encountered his teaching anywhere before. > My exposure to various systems of philosophy is actually very > limited. > > Best to you, Durga>> No, Durgaji, I'm the one who is sorry. You see, I tried to dupe you into doing my dirty work for me. I was on this site: http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/ramanuja.htm which goes into Ramanuja's refutation of Shankara's advaita, but it looked way too daunting for this IQ-impaired seeker to even begin to fathom. Fact is, I'm at the point in both my seeking, as well as my mundane life, whereby, if it's not short and sweet and directly to the point then I don't want even want to know about it. I was just trying to pick your brain b/c I was too lazy to attempt to wade through that Sargasso Sea of qualified non-duality myself. My bad! as it were. One more question, though. Shankara, who appeared, I guess, around 800 CE, is not part of the Vedantic tradition, right? Or rather, where does Shankara fit in to the whole Vedantic scheme of things, if he does at all? Not trying to dupe you this time. Mr. E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2005 Report Share Posted April 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " <misterenlightenment> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Durga " <durgaji108> wrote: > ><<sni>> > > > Dear Mr. E, > > > > Sorry to disappoint you, but I had never heard of Ramanuja and had > > to look him up. It seems that he developed his own system, of > > understanding, which must have been somewhat different from > > Shankara's. I've never encountered his teaching anywhere before. > > My exposure to various systems of philosophy is actually very > > limited. > > > > Best to you, Durga>> > > No, Durgaji, I'm the one who is sorry. > > You see, I tried to dupe you into doing my dirty work for me. > > I was on this site: > > http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/ramanuja.htm > > which goes into Ramanuja's refutation of Shankara's advaita, but it > looked way too daunting for this IQ-impaired seeker to even begin to > fathom. > > Fact is, I'm at the point in both my seeking, as well as my mundane > life, whereby, if it's not short and sweet and directly to the point > then I don't want even want to know about it. > > I was just trying to pick your brain b/c I was too lazy to attempt to > wade through that Sargasso Sea of qualified non-duality myself. > > My bad! as it were. > > One more question, though. > > Shankara, who appeared, I guess, around 800 CE, is not part of the > Vedantic tradition, right? > > Or rather, where does Shankara fit in to the whole Vedantic scheme of > things, if he does at all? > > Not trying to dupe you this time. > > Mr. E Okay, Mr. E., I will answer to the best of my ability. I'm also quite lazy, and when I googled Ramanuj, and saw the volume of material, I thought, " I haven't got the patience to wade through all of that. " And I don't know that much about the history of Shankara either, but the tradition in which I am a student is reputed to stretch back in a line unbroken to Shankara. So within that tradition of Advaita/Vedanta, he is held to be the authority, and his bashas (that is commentaries) on the Upanishads are often used in teaching. Beyond that I don't know too much about him. I believe that it is held that he revitalized the teachings of the Upanishads (that is Vedanta), those scriptures which appear at the end of the Vedas. I believe that through his teachings he illustrated the way in which the Upanishads are meant to be used, as a pramana, that is as a direct means of knowledge. It is held that all of the means of knowledge which we have available to us as individuals are designed to enable us to navigate within duality. Eyes to see, ears to hear, sense of touch to feel, etc., but there is no sense organ which we have that can be used to directly perceive that which we already are, i.e. the Self. So the Upanishads (in the hands of a competent teacher) are used as a pramana, a direct means of knowledge. They, as if, hold up a mirror to your Self, and show you directly and unequivocally that you are the Self, and there is a method in doing this. I believe that prior to Shankara this way of using the Upanishads had been lost, and that he revitalized the tradition, but I could be wrong about that. I would have to ask some one more knowledgeable than I am. Best to you, Durga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2005 Report Share Posted April 30, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Durga " <durgaji108> wrote: ><<snip> > > One more question, though. > > > > Shankara, who appeared, I guess, around 800 CE, is not part of the > > Vedantic tradition, right? > > > > Or rather, where does Shankara fit in to the whole Vedantic scheme > of > > things, if he does at all? > > > > Not trying to dupe you this time. > > > > Mr. E > > > Okay, Mr. E., I will answer to the best of my ability. I'm also > quite lazy, and when I googled Ramanuj, and saw the volume of > material, I thought, " I haven't got the patience to wade through all > of that. " > > And I don't know that much about the history of Shankara either, but > the tradition in which I am a student is reputed to stretch back in > a line unbroken to Shankara. So within that tradition of > Advaita/Vedanta, he is held to be the authority, and his bashas > (that is commentaries) on the Upanishads are often used in teaching. > > Beyond that I don't know too much about him. I believe that it is > held that he revitalized the teachings of the Upanishads (that is > Vedanta), those scriptures which appear at the end of the Vedas. > > I believe that through his teachings he illustrated the way in which > the Upanishads are meant to be used, as a pramana, that is as a > direct means of knowledge. > > It is held that all of the means of knowledge which we have > available to us as individuals are designed to enable us to navigate > within duality. Eyes to see, ears to hear, sense of touch to feel, > etc., but there is no sense organ which we have that can be used to > directly perceive that which we already are, i.e. the Self. > > So the Upanishads (in the hands of a competent teacher) are used as > a pramana, a direct means of knowledge. They, as if, hold up a > mirror to your Self, and show you directly and unequivocally that > you are the Self, and there is a method in doing this. > > I believe that prior to Shankara this way of using the Upanishads > had been lost, and that he revitalized the tradition, but I could be > wrong about that. I would have to ask some one more knowledgeable > than I am. Best to you, Durga>> Thanks, Durgaji. Clear and concise and perfectly understandable as usual. In the immortal words of Tony Soprano, " You're beyoodaful. " 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.