new to group....how advaita can help lifelong issues?Q TO DURGAJI!

[Guest guest]

Dear Dhyanasaraswatiji,

 

" i did not read the rest of the article . i am sure Jamws Shwartz has

good credentials - after all he comes from the

Chinmayananda/Dayananda school but somehow i could not take him

seriously after what he wrote about Swami Vivekananda ! Sorry ! we

all have our own weaknesses ! "

 

I know that Swami Vivekananda is well-respected, but we have to

examine people's arguments and not just dismiss someone because they

don't shower Vivekananda with heaps of praises.

 

After all, a lot of what Vivekananda says is explicitly contrary to

what Shankara says. Vivekananda says that Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga and

(especially) Raja Yoga are all fully means to liberation. Shankara

clearly says that such pursuits are meant for purification of the mind

and knowledge gained through sravanam, etc... is the means of

liberation. Vivekananda says that the attainment of nirvikalpa

samadhi, which is a state where all vrittis of the mind have ceased,

is a neccesary and sufficient cause for liberation. Shankara says that

in samadhi duality is temporarily destroyed like in deep sleep, but it

re-emmerges because ignorance hasn't been destroyed (thus, clearly,

nirvikalpa samadhi doesn't destroy ignorance).

 

It is nice to ignore the differences, I think it is also dishonest.

Either Shankara is wrong or Vivekananda is wrong or they are both

wrong. Saying they are both right amounts to saying Shankara is wrong

(because Shankara has the more specific position in all these cases).

To say something to the effect " maybe you are misinterpreting them " is

fine, but this has to be substantiated and not mystified. Too often,

the whole modern Hindu dialectic is oriented towards avoid reasoning;

surely this is devastating, no?

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

>

> Dear Dhyanasaraswatiji,

 

> After all, a lot of what Vivekananda says is explicitly contrary to

> what Shankara says. Vivekananda says that Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga and

> (especially) Raja Yoga are all fully means to liberation. Shankara

> clearly says that such pursuits are meant for purification of the mind

> and knowledge gained through sravanam, etc... is the means of

> liberation. Vivekananda says that the attainment of nirvikalpa

> samadhi, which is a state where all vrittis of the mind have ceased,

> is a neccesary and sufficient cause for liberation. Shankara says that

> in samadhi duality is temporarily destroyed like in deep sleep, but it

> re-emmerges because ignorance hasn't been destroyed (thus, clearly,

> nirvikalpa samadhi doesn't destroy ignorance).

 

>

> It is nice to ignore the differences, I think it is also dishonest.

> Either Shankara is wrong or Vivekananda is wrong or they are both

> wrong. Saying they are both right amounts to saying Shankara is wrong

> (because Shankara has the more specific position in all these cases).

> To say something to the effect " maybe you are misinterpreting them " is

> fine, but this has to be substantiated and not mystified. Too often,

> the whole modern Hindu dialectic is oriented towards avoid reasoning;

> surely this is devastating, no?

 

Namaste Sri Rishi-ji,

 

Swami Vivekananda did not to all that has been told by Sri

Shankaracharya. There are no issues in that. In fact, in some places

he has expressed his strong views against some of Shankara's

interpretations. Hence, it is meaningless to compare and try to

reconcile. If somebody blames Swami Vivekananda for creating confusion

in Shankara's advaita, the problem lies with the people who compare

and not with Swamiji.

 

Secondly, as far as issue of Samadhi is concerned, there is no

unanimity between the different institutions which follow shankara's

line of teachings. Some say it is accepted, and some dismiss saying

that it is against his teachings. There had been heated debates on

this issue and I think you are aware of its availability in the files

section. Let me reiterate once again here, that, Swami Vivekananda *is

not* an authority in Adviata Philosophy as propogated by Sri

ShankarAchArya. I am not worried about this issue at all, because, I

consider Swami Vivekananda and his Guru Sri Ramakrishna as an

independent authorities. They never cared for commentaries and

interpretations but realized the truths themselves and taught. All

need not to to their conclusions also. It is a matter of

personal choice.

 

Can you show me where Swamiji has told that Raja Yoga is fully means

to liberation? He did teach Raja Yoga in the west, but he has never

told that its conclusions are ultimate, because its a dualistic

philosophy. Yes, when he taught Raja Yoga he did not mix up the

conclusions of Vedanta, but he taught according to the teachings of

Patanjali which is quite understandable.

 

When he talks about yoga as independent means to liberation, he is not

necessarily talking about raja yoga, but there are certain yogic

practices which helps to control the mind, such as Hata Yoga and

meditations according to tantra etc., which will lead an aspirant to

the non-dual realization. Of course, one may or may not agree to the

efficacy of these practices, thats entirely different issue.

 

Finally you have told that:

 

Too often, the whole modern Hindu dialectic is oriented towards avoid

reasoning; surely this is devastating, no?

 

Answer is quite obvious, It is *yes* and I am sorry to say that you

are also doing the same mistake. Because, comparing itself in the

first place, without studying what Swamiji has told, is a biggest mistake.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Respected Rishiji :-

 

Thanx for your detailed response ! i already knew i am a Little Lamb

ENTERING A LION'S DEN!

 

Yes ! It is one thing not to to the concept of 'nirvikalpa'

samadhi and dissmiss it as anti -shankaran philosophy but it is

not 'sexy' to decry great vedantins like Swami vivekananda ! Great

swamis do not cricicize other great swamis ! The only reason i got

disenchanmted with srila prabhupadha's ISKCON MOVEMENT WAS they

constantly berated other swamis and other faiths !

 

i am not going to argue with you on the merits and demerits of

Nirvikalpa samadhi - BR VvINAYAKAJI HAS ALREADY DONE THAT MANY TIMES

IN THIS AUGUST GROUP ... '

 

 

I WILL SIMPLY SAY THIS IN THE TRUE BHAVA OF A RAMANA DEVOTEE- all

paths are relevant in the beginning stages of Sadhana for the

purification of the Mind!

 

James Scharwartz SEEMS TO HOLD SRI RAMANA IN HIGH ESTEEM ! For that ,

we must be grateful to him .

 

 

but , please read what James Shwartz says about Kundalini yoga on his

web site

 

 

" Kundalini is a very fickle bitch. She is completely unfaithful and

inconstant. One minute she is seducing you and driving you wild

with passion and the next minute she abandons you without so much as

a by-your-leave and you end up angry and depressed. Aim for shanti,

it beats shakti every time. "

 

WwHAT A BIZARRE STATEMENYT ! DO YOU EXPECT ME TO TAKE THIS PERSON

SERIOUSLY ! EVEN SRI RAMANA WHO DID NOT BELIEVE IN KUNDALINI YOGA

WOULD SNOT DESCRIBE THIS GREAT YOGA IN SUCH A DEROGATORY WAY! i know

what Schwartz means ! Hemeans Kundalini awakening is temporary which

is what sri ramana also said .... but Language is sri Saraswati

herself - no, this guy does not float my boat -sorry!

 

btw, Rishiji, Adi Shankara himself describes the beauty and divinity

of MAA KUNDALINI IN HIS DEVOTIONAL COMPOSSITION OF SOUNDARYA LAHARI !

NOW , PLEASE DON'T TURN AROUND AND TELL ME THAT THE AUTHORSHIP OF

SAUNDARYA LAHARI IS IN QUESTION!

 

JAMES SHWARTZ IS ALSO DECRYING 'SATSANGH' CALLING IT NEO-VEDANTA BUT

HE HE HAS NO PROBLEM HOOLDING WEB SATSANGHS! MAY BE NOW I AM INCLINED

TO BELIEVE DURGAJI -WE DO NEED TO TAKE SOME OF THESE SELF STYLED

WESTERN GURUS WITH A PINCH OF SALT!

 

i know Rishji , you are passionate about Shankara's Advaita . and i

also agree with you that we should base all our arguments on

reasoning ! but ....

 

aS KHALIL GIBRAN SAYS

 

" Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your

seafaring soul. If either your sails or your rudder be broken, you

can but toss and drift, or else be held at a standstill in mid-seas.

For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion,

unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction.

Therefore let your soul exalt your reason to the height of passion,

that it may sing;

And let it direct your passion with reason, that your passion may

live through its own daily resurrection, and like the phoenix rise

above its own ashes. "

 

 

BELIEVE ME , I AM PASSIONATE AND I AM REASONABLE FOR THE MOST PART !

BUT THE MOMENT WE SAY 'THERE IS ONLY ONE ADVAITA' WE ARE BEING

DUALISTIC ! SMILE :-)

 

 

LOVE AND REGARDS

 

 

 

 

 

 

yE!

-- In advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane

wrote:

>

> Dear Dhyanasaraswatiji,

>

> " i did not read the rest of the article . i am sure Jamws Shwartz

has

> good credentials - after all he comes from the

> Chinmayananda/Dayananda school but somehow i could not take him

> seriously after what he wrote about Swami Vivekananda ! Sorry ! we

> all have our own weaknesses ! "

>

> I know that Swami Vivekananda is well-respected, but we have to

> examine people's arguments and not just dismiss someone because

they

> don't shower Vivekananda with heaps of praises.

>

> After all, a lot of what Vivekananda says is explicitly contrary to

> what Shankara says. Vivekananda says that Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga

and

> (especially) Raja Yoga are all fully means to liberation. Shankara

> clearly says that such pursuits are meant for purification of the

mind

> and knowledge gained through sravanam, etc... is the means of

> liberation. Vivekananda says that the attainment of nirvikalpa

> samadhi, which is a state where all vrittis of the mind have

ceased,

> is a neccesary and sufficient cause for liberation. Shankara says

that

> in samadhi duality is temporarily destroyed like in deep sleep, but

it

> re-emmerges because ignorance hasn't been destroyed (thus, clearly,

> nirvikalpa samadhi doesn't destroy ignorance).

>

> It is nice to ignore the differences, I think it is also dishonest.

> Either Shankara is wrong or Vivekananda is wrong or they are both

> wrong. Saying they are both right amounts to saying Shankara is

wrong

> (because Shankara has the more specific position in all these

cases).

> To say something to the effect " maybe you are misinterpreting them "

is

> fine, but this has to be substantiated and not mystified. Too

often,

> the whole modern Hindu dialectic is oriented towards avoid

reasoning;

> surely this is devastating, no?

>

> Regards,

>

> Rishi.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinayaka,

 

Thank you for your response. I agree with basically everything you say

and this seems to be the position of most senior Sanyasis in the

Ramakrishna mission; it is a position I enormously appreciate for its

honesty.

 

" Secondly, as far as issue of Samadhi is concerned, there is no

unanimity between the different institutions which follow shankara's

line of teachings. "

 

I agree with this to some extent, but disagreement should not blur us

into thinking that all positions are equally true.

 

Shankara explicitly says that in deep sleep and samadhi duality is

temporarily suspended, but re-emmerges becuase false knowledge hasn't

been removed (Brahma Sutra Bhasya, 2.1.9). He also explicitly argues

that citta-vritti-nirodha is not a means of liberation and liberation

entials the Vedanta-pramana in different occaisons. I don't think

anyone doubts this.

 

I think the arguments on this discussion group were very specific. As

far as I know, this " pro-Samadhi " people were not arguing that samadhi

was a neccesary or a sufficient cause of liberation. It was an aid.

This is already a very diluted argument and as such, not neccesarily

in contradiction with anything in particular. I don't think anyone

serious argues on the basis of Shankara that samadhi (used in the

sense of citta-vritti-nirodha) is either neccesary or sufficent for

liberation.

 

In any case, since you accept that there are differences, my basic

point here stands irrespective of the samadhi-issue. Disagreeing with

Vivekananda or pointing out the non-canonical status of some of his

positions isn't a sin, but is something that someone honestly trying

to understand Shankara might have to do, occaisonally. I am aware you

agree with this but a lot of people have problems with this in

practice.

 

" When he talks about yoga as independent means to liberation, he is

not

necessarily talking about raja yoga, but there are certain yogic

practices which helps to control the mind, such as Hata Yoga and

meditations according to tantra etc., which will lead an aspirant to

the non-dual realization. Of course, one may or may not agree to the

efficacy of these practices, thats entirely different issue. "

 

I am using Raja Yoga in this sense and not in the sense of " Yoga

darshana. " Incidentally, neither Patanjali, nor his commentator ever

use the word " Raja Yoga " and its equation with Patanjali's Yoga is

more modern. Both the Yoga Bhashya and the Hatha Yoga Pradipika say

that Yoga (in the latter's case, using the word " Raja Yoga " itself)

means samadhi in the primary sense, and means of attaining samadhi, in

the secondary.

 

You seem to agree that such methods are a means of liberation

according to Swami Vivekananda. According to Shankara, sravanam, etc.

... are the only means to liberation and not citta-vritti nirodha of

various kinds. He also explains why, of course.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Obviously an interesting topic, since as Durga-ji pointed out, I am

currently writing a book on the topic (traditional versus Western

approaches, that is - most Westerners are

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=3

6064/stime=1179667814/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848553/nc3=3848567> unaware of the

traditional versus Vivekananda issues).

 

However, I would ask participants to bear three things in mind:

 

1) please do not diverge too much from the group guidelines;

2) do not go too much over old ground (e.g. the samAdhi issue has been

discussed extensively before and is available in the archive):

3) please only criticize fairly and reasonably, avoiding unsupported

invective against any other teachers/writers/members. (e.g. Adi-ji - James

Swartz is one of the reviewers of my new book and I respect his views

highly!)

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Debnnis-ji :

 

i apologize Dennisji - i did not know James Schwartz was a reviewer

of your book -

 

 

Debnnisji, you know i am 'partial' to you because you have given

me 'shelter' in this group and have been extremely cordial to me i

will refrain from Criticizing James Schwartz .but the Mother in me

always wants to protect Maa Kali's child Swami Vivekananda! Not that

swamiji needs any validation or endorsement !

 

 

You may note that there were many articles in the thread on your web

site ( even my all time favotite Chitta's views on Traditional

vedanta as an aid to liberation) BUT somehow i was attracted to James

Schwartz's article - that itself shows he 'stood' out among all

others as an 'extraordinaryl' human being . Since my original post, i

have also read James Schwartz's auto biography and have been

impressed with all the unsavory 'personal' details he has revealed

about himself ! Yes , anyone who is so 'outspoken' and 'honest about

his ersonal weaknesses is worthy of admiration !

 

 

however Dennisji , i am not going to argue about Advaita versus neo

advaita just as i would not argue about tantra versus neo tantra But

i will say this about 'satsangha' - any kind of satsangha is good

where there are like minded individuals joining together to discuss

spirituality ! would you not agree ?

 

 

anyway after reading rishji's lovely response to Br.VINAYAKA , I

WOULD ONLY LIKE TO QUOTE THIS VERSE FROM SRIMAD BHAGVAT GITA CH 6 ,

VERSE 5 !

 

 

uddhared atmanatmanam

natmanam avasadayet

atmaiva hy atmano bandhur

atmaiva ripur atmanah

(CH 6 VERSE 5, BG )

 

 

 

A man must elevate himself by his own mind, not degrade himself. The

mind is the friend of the conditioned soul, and his enemy as well.

 

YES ! how can you reach the higher self except by taming the lower

self ? That is where 'chitta -vritti nirodha' comes in handy !

 

furthermore ,

 

mana eva manusyanam karanam bandha-moksayoh

bandhaya visayasango muktyai nirvisayam manah

 

 

" For man, mind is the cause of bondage and mind is the cause of

liberation. Mind absorbed in sense objects is the cause of bondage,

and mind detached from the sense objects is the cause of liberation. "

 

 

well, Rishiji - every '' has its own eficacy in training the

monkey mind ! to that extent , chitta vritti nirodha is also useful!

 

 

anyway, dennisji , since you are very dear to me , i apologize for

any transgression i might have inadvewvertantly committed ! it is

not a sin to critize Vivekananda ; nor is it a sin to criticize James

Schwartz ! but , it is a sin to 'hurt' people whom we hold dear who

hold 'vivekananda ' or james schwartz dear !

 

so dennisji , pl forgive this Mother !

 

 

love and regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

>

> Obviously an interesting topic, since as Durga-ji pointed out, I am

> currently writing a book on the topic (traditional versus Western

> approaches, that is - most Westerners are

> <http://geo./serv?

s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=3

> 6064/stime=1179667814/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848553/nc3=3848567> unaware

of the

> traditional versus Vivekananda issues).

>

> However, I would ask participants to bear three things in mind:

>

> 1) please do not diverge too much from the group guidelines;

> 2) do not go too much over old ground (e.g. the samAdhi issue has

been

> discussed extensively before and is available in the archive):

> 3) please only criticize fairly and reasonably, avoiding unsupported

> invective against any other teachers/writers/members. (e.g. Adi-ji -

James

> Swartz is one of the reviewers of my new book and I respect his

views

> highly!)

>

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Thank you for your response. I agree with basically everything you say

> and this seems to be the position of most senior Sanyasis in the

> Ramakrishna mission; it is a position I enormously appreciate for its

> honesty.

>

> In any case, since you accept that there are differences, my basic

> point here stands irrespective of the samadhi-issue. Disagreeing with

> Vivekananda or pointing out the non-canonical status of some of his

> positions isn't a sin, but is something that someone honestly trying

> to understand Shankara might have to do, occaisonally. I am aware you

> agree with this but a lot of people have problems with this in

> practice.

 

 

Namaskaram Sri Rishiji,

 

I could not resist this topic, for I fall in that self-mystifying lot and have

problems with this

approach to Vivekananda.

 

Let me just say: Shankara wrote clear commentaries quoting the scriptures and

refuting

other schools of thought through logic, etc. It is appropriate to

compare/contrast him with

Ramanuja or Madhva who approached in the same manner.

 

Vivekananda did not do this in the same sense and even more so his Guru. His

independent authority should not be mistaken or misconstrued as representing a

philosophy on his own ground or his guru's. Rather Vivekananda is a follower of

Shankara's interpretation of Upanishadic thought who embellishes the details

with his own

realizations and efforts to unify the scriptures as per their spirit rather than

by their letter.

The variations are minor between him and Shankara as also between him and Sri

Ramakrishna (or such can be argued, no doubt). In his public lectures and

writings, he did

represent Shankara's interpretation of the Upanishads which he held to be the

essential

pinnacle of religious philosophy.

 

To understand Shankara in the academic sense, you should not be comparing with

Vivekananda and what he said to the contrary of the scriptural letter. That is

like

comparing apples and oranges, and would fall in the self-mystifying sense. It

becomes

your personal choice possibly influenced by your inner motivations regarding the

personality: you cannot make Mathematics out of such interpretations of

Vivekananda or

his Guru. (But you can, out of Shankara if you wish, on the basis of his

mathematical

commentaries). Vivekananda represented the spirit of Shankara's approach (or so

he no

doubt thought), and he came upon some of the issues in his free-thinking manner

trying

to get to the essence of the thing. The essential core is the same. Beyond that

is our

personal choice and understanding and spiritual-maturity to get the essence of

sages'

sayings, and connotations of honesty or dishonesty about it are as self-deluding

and

short-sighted and immature.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

" The greatest teacher of Vedanta Philosophy was Shankaracharya. By solid

reasoning he

extracted from the Vedas the truths of Vedanta, and on them built up the

wonderful

system of Jnana that is taught in his commentaries. He unified all the

conflicting

descriptions of Brahman and showed that there is only on Infinite Reality. He

showed too

that as man can only travel slowly on the upward road, all the varied

presentations are

needed to suit his varying capacity. " -- Swami Vivekananda.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> Namaskaram Sri Rishiji,

>

>

> Vivekananda did not do this in the same sense and even more so his Guru. His

> independent authority should not be mistaken or misconstrued as representing a

> philosophy on his own ground or his guru's. Rather Vivekananda is a follower

of

> Shankara's interpretation of Upanishadic thought who embellishes the details

with his

own

> realizations and efforts to unify the scriptures as per their spirit rather

than by their

letter.

> The variations are minor between him and Shankara as also between him and Sri

 

 

From the book " Life & Philosophy of Sri Sankaracharya " by Swami Mukhyananda, ...

published by Sri Ramakrishna Advaita Ashrama.

 

(Quote)

 

Acharya Sankara played a very prominent part in the cultural history of India as

a mystic

philosopher, and teacher. Swami Vivekananda, who was the best exponent of

Shankara's

Advaita in modern times has admired his keen intellect and philosophic genius

and his

work for the regeneration of the country. ... The momentum of those forces for

the

rejuvenation of religion and society on a philosophical and scientific basis

continues

unabated even to this day, and the work of regeneration of Man initiated by him

is still

progressing, through the instrumentality of the great Swami Vivekananda, and is

now

reaching out to the whole world.

 

(Unquote)

 

 

I think about a hundred years after a great man's passing away, his followers

start

deciding what he really meant. The above quote represents how I think it was

more or less

understood in the first fifty years at least.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu