Guest guest Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 Chandogya upanishad, IV. 9. 3 says:-- " Only the knowledge acquired from a teacher becomes the best " . Thus the shruti itself lays down the need for a guru. As regards persons like Sri Ramana Bhagavan who attained enlightenment without a guru, it must be noted that spiritual perfection is the result of puNya and knowledge acquired over many lives, which culminate in Self-knowledge in the final birth. This is stated by Sri Sankara in his bhAshya on br. up. 1.4.10 as under:--When a person has been born with a select body and organs as a result of his past merits (puNya and knowledge acquired in past births), he excels in knowledge, intelligence and memory. Having burnt all his evils which produce qualities the very opposite of righteousness, knowledge, dispassion and lordship, he gets a perfected birth in which he is possessed of a pure body and organs; hence he might well have the knowledge of the unity (oneness of the Self) without any instruction. S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 On 12/18/07 5:04 AM, " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > > Chandogya upanishad, IV. 9. 3 says:-- > > " Only the knowledge acquired from a teacher becomes the best " . > > Thus the shruti itself lays down the need for a guru. > > As regards persons like Sri Ramana Bhagavan who attained enlightenment > without a guru...... > ....................hence he might well have > the knowledge of the unity (oneness of the Self) without any instruction. > > S.N.Sastri > > > Raman: I can only speak by experience. And without the Guru I would have not been able to realize not even the beauty of the teachings of Adavaita as I did know nothing about them when I met him. I am spanish, and when I met my Guru, was working in research in molecular genetics in for the National Research Council of Spain. I declared myself atheist and was trying to find the secret of life within the molecules of DNA. One Friday 30 years ago, as I was returning home frustrated because my girlfriend, of whom I was completely and passionately in love with, had turned me down. As I arrived home I was trying to find a solution to my psychological state. On the one side I had this feeling of being in love that transported me to heavens... (as a good spaniard I have always been very emotional and romantic), on the other side I felt so frustrated as all that love I had had no where to express. I made then the most important decission of my life. The house was dirty, I was a young man, you know. I said to myself I will use all this energy I am feeling in cleaning the house. And what happened without me knowing what was going on was the I exercised bhakti in action: karma yoga. I figured in my mind that that one would be a great battle, the battle of the clean ones against the dirty ones. I had to somehow distract my mind from the thoughts about Maria del Mar, the angel that had just turned me down.... And the battle started. I did not know anything about Arjuna, or the Gita at all. But what happened that weekend may have been a little battle of Arjuna, against all the dirty ones, because each dirt in the house somehow represented one of my own doings, and as I cleaned it I realized it as my own, and somehow cleaned it inside also.... And one by one the clean ones gained territory to the dirty ones in this battle that some day I will describe in detail. On Sunday the clean ones had completely defeated the dirty ones in that epic battle and I was in peace. The thought of Mari Mar had completely disappeared from my consciousness and only that clean and beautiful coasy home was existing. I closed my eyes. I could feel this very strong feeling of Love inside me, but it was not being focused in nothing. I had no want at all. It was the same energy I had that Friday when focused in Mari Mar, but somehow stronger and purified after the battle, and existing by itself. As I closed my eyes I also saw a bright point in my forehead. May be I looked at a light before closing them, I don¹t know, but it was there... Pristine... a brilliant and completely still dot of light in front of my closed eyes. I looked at it as I was feeling this energy welling up from my heart. And I felt good about the experience. So my mind completely focused in that bright dot of light in front of my eyes and this feeling of Love welling up spontaneously started to inundate my feelings and senses. And it was like if the energy welling up from the heart was rising and the dot of light where my mind had fixed to was coming inside till both things touced each other (the heart feeling welling out and the brilliant point of light drifting inside). It was like a phonomenal explosion that I perceived as if 100,000 angels with gigantic trumpets would blow in each of my millions of cells a sound that I interpreted as Love and that was heard as AUM. May I add here that I never before had contact with that sound or sign. It was like BAHM!!! Like in an explosion... But was not BAHM, was AUM!!! The explosion not only had the sound, the brilliant dot of light that exploded simultaneusly as it touched the energy from the heart dis get my consciousness inundated by White Light that was also that Love of the trumpets the angels where blowing. Then I perceived as if a body would fall within another body as I was sitting in this chair. It was like as if it where dodies falling over my first body sitting on that chair in the room, and then another body also mine would fall but this body was also in the town, and another body fell and he was in the county, and the next and he was in spain, and the next and he was in europe, and the next.... And so on, each body included kind of more, and all were my body.... Each body brought into consciousness what it included within. The world, the solar system, the galaxies, and I saw everything in this universe, as each body included more consciousness of the manifested world. I saw all the stories ever told, all the Gods and the Devas, all the battles, I saw Christ and I saw him as Ishvara, because he was everyone and none at the same time, and then my hand moved, and I realized I was the universe itself, that I was not moving my hand, the universe was moving. And suddenly I got afraid as I became conscious of the first body in the chair that was the little me that had sat down after cleaning the house that Sunday evening. And I heard a voice that said. I have been waiting for you. As I heard it the reverse process of the bodies happened, as if they left my body, one after the other each body left till I found myself back sitting in the chair where everything had started. I knew, somehow, that I had to find a spiritual master and that he was from India. So I started to search for someone that could explain me what had happened to me. Sometimes I thought I could be loosing my mind. But finally I found him. Gururaj Ananda Yogi. Born in Gujarat. I did need a guru at least. Here is a little satsang from him if you are interested: Raman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 --- Ramon Leonato <raman wrote: .. But finally > I found him. Gururaj Ananda Yogi. Born in Gujarat. > > Raman Shree Roman - my hearty congratulations. One has to discover his guru. You found one. That is due to God's grace. It is said that three things are difficult indeed - 1. To be born as human being 2. To have strong spiritual desire 3. To have acquaintance with a great soul. All three due to the grace of God only. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 Yes, indeed through the Grace of God Hari Om beloved brother Raman Through the grace of God indeed On 12/18/07 6:58 AM, " kuntimaddi sadananda " <kuntimaddisada wrote: > --- Ramon Leonato <raman <raman%40ifsu.org> > wrote: > > . But finally >> > I found him. Gururaj Ananda Yogi. Born in Gujarat. > >> > >> > Raman > > Shree Roman - my hearty congratulations. > > One has to discover his guru. You found one. That is > due to God's grace. > > It is said that three things are difficult indeed - 1. > To be born as human being > 2. To have strong spiritual desire > 3. To have acquaintance with a great soul. > All three due to the grace of God only. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 shastriji , Thank you for that timely quote from Chandogya upanishads . HOWEVER , Sri Ramana Bhagwan did have a Guru ! None other than Sri ARUNACHALESHWERA! Sri Ramana bhagwan always saluted his Guru Lord Arunachaleshwera when the deity was taken in procession during utsavam days thereby showing respect and reverance for his Guru! In the Marital Garland of letters , sri ramana sings thus : " Shine as my Guru, making me free from faults and worthy of Thy Grace, Oh Arunachala! " may i recall a verse that appeared in the collected works of sri Ramana " Keep advaita within the Heart. Do not ever carry it into action. Even if you apply it to all the three worlds, O son, it is not to be applied to the Guru. " on another note , i loved this particular quote of Sri Anandaji from his new book " Ways to Truth " " It is when a Guru is on his own as an individual without the backing of an institution that he has greater reason to be pure of heart and mind " - and guess , who uttered these words - none other than Sri Chandrasekhara SARASWATI , WHO HIMSELF BELONGS TO THE GREAT KANCHI MUTT ! Makes sense , does it not ? specially in these days , when Gurus themselves become larger than the institution they supposedly represent ! i myself have been bitten by the so called gurus of Iskcon and TM movement ..... Om Sri Gurubyo Namaha ! Om Sri Gurubyo Namaha ! ps ays of Truth' ... guys read what Sri Kanchi maha periyavaal says on guru in this book advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > Chandogya upanishad, IV. 9. 3 says:-- > > " Only the knowledge acquired from a teacher becomes the best " . > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 Thank you sadaji for this favorite quote of mine from Vivekachudamani. We go back and forth on this debate whether a gutru should be well versed in scriptures alone or he should be one who is well situated in Brahman consciousness ! () stotrajnani versus brahma nishta) may i quote the following verse from my favorite upanishad , Chandogya wherein Swetaketu asks his father ( also his Guru Uddalaka muni) the following question : Na vai nunam bhagavantas ta etad avedisuh, yadd hy etad avedisyan, katham me navaksyn-iti bhagavans tv eva me tad bravitv iti; tatha, saumya, iti hovaca. " If they had known this, why should they have not told this to me? I have never heard these things up to this time. I have studied the four Vedas, I have studied the Shastras, but nothing of this kind was heard from any quarter. What is this? Will you kindly explain, holy father? " YES !It is then that Uddalaka muni explains to Swetketu the mystery and finer nuances of Brahma vidya to his Sn Swetaketu with the example of various mundane examples ! In my humble opinion ( imho ) , there is no conflict between these two - study of scriptures and knowledge of Brahman - they are complimentary to each other ! Sri Ramakrishna was a brahma jnani but after attainment of Brahma jnana , he walso became well versed in all scriptures and was able to quote the shastras with ease. So was the case with shri Ramana bhagwan. on another note , the Mundaka upanishad also says " This Knowledge of Brahman should he told to those only who have performed the necessary duties, who are versed in the Vedas and devoted to Brahman, and who, full of faith, have offered oblations in the Ekarshi Fire and performed, according to rule, the rite of carrying fire on the head. " Viewed in this light , How many of us qualify ? but then the same upanishad also says " This Atman cannot be attained through study of the Vedas, nor through intelligence, nor through much learning. He who chooses Atman-by him alone is Atman attained. It is Atman that reveals to the seeker Its true nature. " So , the point is to even get Guru Kataksham we need ISHWERA ANUGRAHAM! OM SHANTI! SHANTI! SHANTIHI! ps : Sadaji - Sreenivasa is in my heart ( HRIDAYA NIWASI) - I NEED NOT GO TO VAIKUNTA TO MEET HIM! where there is no 'kunta' ( means anxiety) there is Vaibhavam! VaasudevaH sarvamiti sa mahaatmaa sudurlabhaH(Rare is the great one, who knows, 'Vaasudeva is all) Vinatha advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > Mounaji - My PraNAms. > > I did not realize that I am going to get into trouble > here. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 --- bhagini_niveditaa <bhagini_niveditaa wrote: > Na vai nunam bhagavantas ta etad avedisuh, yadd hy > etad avedisyan, > katham me navaksyn-iti bhagavans tv eva me tad > bravitv iti; tatha, > saumya, iti hovaca. > > " If they had known this, why should they have not > told this to me? Actually in the gurukula the teacher teaches all subjects except brahmajnaanam - being a brahmachaari was sufficient to learn all other subjects. But brahmajnaanam is only taught to those who have the saadhana sampatti - hence Swetaketu's conclusion that my teacher did not know and if he had known he would have taught me was wrong - Uddalaka recognized the problem - it was not the teacher's problem the student was not adhikaari for that knowledge. Out of compassion to his son, he started to teach once the sun asked him to teach. tat vijnaanaartham sa gurumevaabhigacchet - student is asked to approach a teacher to learn after of course acquiring the viairagya and vivika. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 Dear Bhaginiji: You say: " In my humble opinion ( imho ) , there is no conflict between these two - study of scriptures and knowledge of Brahman - they are complimentary to each other ! Sri Ramakrishna was a brahma jnani but after attainment of Brahma jnana , he walso became well versed in all scriptures and was able to quote the shastras with ease. So was the case with shri Ramana bhagwan. " I agree that there is no conflict between the two, but I am not so sure that they are complimentary. One who is established in BrahmaJnana do not need any-thing, any-body. Don't need even to know how to read or write. In fact, all the views so far described in this thread (and all discussions for that matter) are only from the point of view of the relative Reality or Vyavaharika. The Brahmajnani (or jivanmukta) is beyond any qualifications done by the Relative Mind. The fact that he is a Teacher, even not knowing the Sastras, is because Her/His All Being emanates through Her/His form and reaches Our Ignorance, that by simple contact with Her/His Silence starts to dissolve. Example, Sri Dakshinamurthy, where Self-Realisation was attained by His disciples without the utterance of a single word. I agree completely, that in the case of Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Baghavan Ramana, there was study of the sastras " after-fact " , but not because they " need it " to perpetuate their state (since their state was and is out of time) but maybe (and this is completely MHO, my humble opinion) because as Avatars of Our Supreme Identity, that will help others start the process of Recognition. Even this, they didn't do it " willingly " . (Please forgive me if I misunderstood your intention on the quoted paragraph of your recent post.) OM Shanti, Shanti, Shantih... Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 Mouna-ji, pranam: While there are many who claim to belong to Ramana Maharshi's " lineage " , the fact is that Sri Ramana never formally accepted anyone as a disciple. People went up to him and asked him questions which he answered according to the context. Someone kept a record of these questions & answers and subsequently published them. Sri Ramana also authored a few works himself, many of which were translations of or brief commentaries on Sankara's works. The second point, which is probably more important, is that Sri Ramana was certainly very knowledgeable about the shaastra-s. One could argue that he picked up this formal shaastraic knowledge over time, but that does not take away from the fact that he was a shrotriya. The traditional emphasis on shrotriyatva is there for a very simple reason. Someone well-versed in the shaastra-s and their methods is less likely to lead a disciple astray. On Nisargadatta Maharaj, he was a formal initiate into one of the natha lineages. This is different from the dashanami sampradaya of Sankara, Vidyaranya, et al but nonetheless strongly influenced by Advaita. Ramesh On 18/12/2007, Mouna <maunna wrote: > > Sri Sadaji, pranams > > In your last post, you wrote: > " Shankara says, if a person is > realized but do not know shastras, you have to reject > him as a teacher, since he cannot teach properly. " > > I am a little confused by this interpretation from VivekachuuDamaNi, > since there were Advaitic Teachers like Sri Ramana Maharshi or > Nisargadatta Maharaj to name those known to me that are clearly an > exception to your statement when they began teaching... (at least I > consider them Teachers, maybe you don't view them like that). > > If apropiate, could you expand your commentary on that sloka under > this angle of view? > > Thank you, > Mouna > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 Ramesh-ji, pranams: I agree completely with what you say on your recent post, but some points I would like to " refine " a little further. You say: " While there are many who claim to belong to Ramana Maharshi's " lineage " , the fact is that Sri Ramana never formally accepted anyone as a disciple. " That does not mean that He wasn't a Teacher. Actually, in my opinion (humble?), the best Teacher is like the best Doctor, his intention is to cure the disease and you are out! He continues to be a Doctor, but you are no longer his patient. After that if you want to hang out on the consultory with the other patients, it's your problem, not His. You say: " One could argue that he picked up this formal shaastraic knowledge over time, but that does not take away from the fact that he was a shrotriya. " Shrotriya indeed, when you are a jivanmukta, you are the one who wrote the shastras!! You say: " The traditional emphasis on shrotriyatva is there for a very simple reason. Someone well-versed in the shaastra-s and their methods is less likely to lead a disciple astray. " Although from one point of view it sounds right, I am not sure that a disciple going astray depends entirely on the guru. I am going to risk here, and say that one can also attain Self-Realisation with a not-well-versed in the shastras kind of Teacher, because Iswara works in mysterious ways sometimes... I agree also that Nisargadatta was a case apart, but still a leaf of our sacred Advaitic Tree. Thanks for your input, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 Dear Mouna, You are missing the point here. (Self) Ignorance belongs to the mind in vyavahAra. As Sadaji and others keep pointing out, the only cure for this is self-knowledge. Self-knowledge cannot be communicated by silence, no matter that the sage is a brahmaniShTha. Only a shrotriya has the knowledge of the proven scriptural techniques that are able to penetrate this ignorance and bring about enlightenment in the mind of the seeker. As Swami Dayananda points out, the myth regarding Dakshinamurthy almost certainly came about through a misunderstanding of the word 'mudrA', which should be interpreted as 'language'. He says that if silence was appropriate, then all the Upanishads would consist of blank pages! Best wishes, Dennis << I agree that there is no conflict between the two, but I am not so sure that they are complimentary. One who is established in BrahmaJnana do not need any-thing, any-body. Don't need even to know how to read or write. In fact, all the views so far described in this thread (and all discussions for that matter) are only from the point of view of the relative Reality or Vyavaharika. The Brahmajnani (or jivanmukta) is beyond any qualifications done by the Relative Mind. The fact that he is a Teacher, even not knowing the Sastras, is because Her/His All Being emanates through Her/His form and reaches Our Ignorance, that by simple contact with Her/His Silence starts to dissolve. Example, Sri Dakshinamurthy, where Self-Realisation was attained by His disciples without the utterance of a single word. >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 Mouna, In fact, all the views so far described in this thread (and all discussions for that matter) are only from the point of view of the relative Reality or Vyavaharika THAT IS the only way it can be discussed. We can't discuss from or about the absolute. All discussions about anything can only occur at the relative level. At our absolute level, we've nothing whatsoever to discuss...one of the problems of the subject matter of this list, in my opinion, is that our absolute natures, riding tandem with our relative natures, can never enter the picture or enter the discussion, so we get caught in semantics and linguistics, relatively speaking, and our absolute natures are just sitting back laughing at our antics as we go round and round on the Advaita merry go round! Ha!....that's a funny image...one guy's opinion among many! ______________________________\ ____ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search. http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 Dear All, I think a shrotriya, primarily, is not someone who is well-versed in the scriptures, though this is the common use of the term. The Mundaka Upanishad, for instance, says that a teacher should be a shrotriya. So what does this mean? That the person should have studied Prasthana Traya Bhashyams? This is obviously quite absurd because the Prasthana Traya didn't exist and most of what we call the shastra didn't exist either. A shrotriya literally means someone who has heard the teachings and by extension, someone who is well-versed in the traditional teaching. A person could know the scriptures well but not know the teachings properly. There are, in fact, many people like this. There are also a lot of people who know the teachings very well and with great precision but learn this from hearing topical pravachans rather than explanations of specific scriptures. In any case, I think most people here agree that if someone is a brahmanistha, the teachings will not automatically rain upon them. I htink this is the main point, no? Regards, Rishi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 Dear Dennis: You wrote: " Self-knowledge cannot be communicated by silence, no matter that the sage is a brahmaniShTha. " How do you know? Had you ever being in the presence of One who's language is Silence? I think that you are infering, meaning your mind is dragging you again within its limits. At least, what you CAN say is that you don't know... The knowledge I am talking about is with K capital, not " k " (regular self-knowledge also belongs to the mind, you know that). Of course, in front of someone that doesn't speak (much) you won't learn much about the Mandukya Upanishad, or the Gospel according to Thomas or Rumi's poetry, you won't even be told what time it is even if you ask. But that is not the point, because in the presence of a Jivanmukta Teacher, He will through his Silence, maybe, function as a mirror, and you will see yourself AS YOU ARE, bypassing the mind, and so... acquiring the kind of Knowledge that will Liberate you (I prefer to say: Dissolve " you " ). Some speeches speak to the mind, and some bypass it, some silences are of the Mind, and they don't mean much, and some Silence are straight words to your Heart (capital H) You wrote: " Only a shrotriya has the knowledge of the proven scriptural techniques that are able to penetrate this ignorance and bring about enlightenment in the mind of the seeker. Again, I consider a jivanmukta the perfect shrotriya, because the scriptures POINT to Him, and He knows the Scriptures even before they were written. (But I have to agree, is my definition of shrotriya) You wrote: " As Swami Dayananda points out, the myth regarding Dakshinamurthy almost certainly came about through a misunderstanding of the word 'mudrA', which should be interpreted as 'language'. He says that if silence was appropriate, then all the Upanishads would consist of blank pages! I don't disagree with that, of course, coming from such a Teacher, but to my eyes, Silence IS a 'language'. And by the way, dear Dennis, I don't know if you noticed that all the Upanishads are written text AND a blank page to support that text AT THE SAME TIME! (or Sound with a Silence to support it in the oral tradition). So under this analogy, if you can read the words and not be aware ot the blank page, when you are in front of a jivanmukta in Silence you can notice His silence but not Hear the words that are coming right to the core of your Being. Anyhow, believe me, I always leave the possibility to say that you may be right, and I'm missing the point. It wouldn't matter much in the end... since we are both on the same Boat. Best wishes, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 PraNAms to all. Here is my understanding. As I wrote in my analysis of the mind-1, the teaching involves communication from a teacher to the student in the language that the student can understand. Shrotria is the one who has heard from his teacher and his teacher is the one who heard from his teacher and there is both guruparamapara - lineage of teachers and sampradaaya, a methodology of teaching involving adhyaaropa apavaada - conditioning and deconditioning as discussed in the part I article on the mind. If a student can understand the language of silence, first my hats off to him and second he does not need any more a teacher since he can learn from silence itself - no need for qualifying the silent teacher as Brahman nishTa or shrotriam. In the Uddhavagiita three is bikshu who says he learned from 24 teachers that he lists. Any one of them can teach, but to understand that teaching the student should be mature enough and for that kind of student anything and everything teaches. Steve - teaching involves knowing that there is no validity for vyavahaara at absolute level and substantive of vyavahaara is also paaramaarthika too. That communication can only occur in vyavahaara - the mind has to be used to go beyond the mind like pole vault, using the pole to go beyond the pole. Silence is not keeping mounam - silence is to recognize it in though all the noise. Hence Nirvikalpaka samaadhi has to mature to recognize that even when there is vikalpa or thoughts. It is not thoughtless state but understanding the silence or nirvikalpa in spite of vikalpa - advaita is in spite of dvaita. Shree Ramesh - thanks for the input - from my understanding advaita experience in deep sleep and NS cannot be different otherwise we are making dvaita in advaita experience. If knowledge can occur in NS that is great but for that mind should be awake. But mind is vRitti - and even realization is akhandaakaara Vritti - unbroken recognition of I am - that existence-consciousness that I am, in spite of thoughts present or not. Anyway this is my understanding. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 Self-knowledge cannot be communicated by silence, no matter that the sage is a brahmaniShTha. Only a shrotriya has the knowledge of the proven scriptural techniques that are able to penetrate this ignorance and bring about enlightenment in the mind of the seeker. praNAms Hare Krishna I've an observation here . Though I prefer shrOtrIya to brahmanishTa when it comes to shAstrArtha nirNaya or brahma jignAsa, I think a brahmanishTa will have the expertise to *enlighten* his disciple, if he thinks his pupil is ready for *that*...We have read somany instances where guru instantaneously giving *jnAna* & *jnAnAnubhava* to his disciple ...For example Sri rAmakrishna paramahaMsa's royal touch to his *priya shishya* narEndra...After all shAstra vAkya is meant for jnAna, if brahmanishTa is capable enough to give this jnAna without the aid of shAstra, why dont we accept it?? And again, a brahmanishTa, means who is well established in brahma jnAna & this jnAni must be a sarvajnA (coz. he is brahman itself!!) & he must be in a position to impart required knowledge to his disciple without any external aid like shAstra...Kindly correct me if I said anything wrong here. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 --- bhaskar.yr wrote: And again, a brahmanishTa, means who > is well established in > brahma jnAna & this jnAni must be a sarvajnA (coz. > he is brahman itself!!) > & he must be in a position to impart required > knowledge to his disciple > without any external aid like shAstra...Kindly > correct me if I said > anything wrong here. Bhaskar - PraNAms. Just a clarification from my understanding. Sarvajnaa does not mean he literally knows everything - it means he 'as though' knows everything. It is like knowing gold, I 'as though' know all the ornaments made of gold - this is the essence of teaching of Uddaalaka to his son - eka vijnaanena sarva vijnaanam bhavati' knowing one thing, one knows everything' provided they have kaaraNa- kaarya sambandha like gold and ornaments - cause-effect relationship. That is the reason why the teaching starts with Sat eva soumya idam agra asiit - to establish Sat is kaaraNa or cause and everything else is effect. So knowing the cause one 'as though' knows everything caused by it. Brahman is being vivarta kaaraNa- knowledge of any apparent product involves - adheya (name and form) and adhaara (substantive) jnaana -But adheya being only superficial or adhyaasa, knowing adhaara means knowing 'as though' all adheyas or apparent names and forms formed from that material cause. It is not that Brahman NishTa i sarvajna means he will be knowing quantum mechanics or classical mechanics or what is pizza or how to make one, etc, unless he has studied those before. Brahmajna means one who firmly established in the knowledge that Brahman alone is the cause for all and he himself is the Brahman. He knows the essence not necessarily the superficial details - or adhyeya jnaanam. How to teach also comes under the same category. If he has gone through the learning from a shotriya then he knows the shaastras too to teach also. Teaching involves as though identifying I am teacher and this is a student in need of teaching and also understanding the correct position of the student so that he can make him see the vision that he is seeing. In olden days teaching starts only after observing the student many years to see exactly what his position is and take up from there to remove the knots that are obstructing his knowledge. As you have written on adhyaaropa- apavaada- it does involve shaastriiya knowledge of how the unconditioning can be accomplished in stages. Remember in prajaapati vidyaa, prajaapati had only two students - indra and virocana and the second fellow dropped out - but the teaching went on in steps - one class after every 30 years! Adhikaaritvam (appropriate qualification) is ingrained in the teaching, even if that teaching has to take place in silence. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 Sri Sadaji wrote: > If a student can understand the language of silence, > first my hats off to him and second he does not need > any more a teacher since he can learn from silence > itself - no need for qualifying the silent teacher as > Brahman nishTa or shrotriam. With all due respect, we all know the " language of silence " , the problem being Mind getting in the way trying to figure it out or trying to explain it after it thinks it " got it " . The Teachers we are referring to ARE Silence itself, and I agree, even to qualify them as Brahman nishTas or shrotriyas is limiting the unlimited. And by the way, these kind of teachers also speak, but their words come from Silence itself, not from the Mind (not many of us may be prepared to accept or understand this). At the same time, maybe we should call this thread off, since none of us (please tell me if I am wrong) was ever sitting in front of one of those " kind " of teachers like Ramana Maharshi, or the " mythical " Dakshinamurty. We can only trust the word of people that " learn " from them, " through " silence, the core of the Advaitic Teaching, in fact, that We Are That. Pranams to ALL, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 Sadaji said: > If a student can understand the language of silence, > first my hats off to him and second he does not need > any more a teacher since he can learn from silence > itself - no need for qualifying the silent teacher as > Brahman nishTa or shrotriam. Actually I am not sure if this is a case of mis-communication, because isnt it the object of Shruti to go beyond the text into the essence? Plus there have been various instances where a teacher can communicate to a student without any spoken words, but simply by transmitting the teaching through mind. Please see this link regarding Sri Ramana Maharshi: http://bhagavan-ramana.org//books/bc/bc011.html " Silence is the most powerful form of teaching transmitted from master to adept. The soundless voice is pure intuition. It is the voice of spiritual sound speaking in our innermost being. Self-enquiry is the only path we have in order to eliminate spiritual unconsciousness, which is widespread. Self-enquiry brings the consciousness of the divine, the universal truth and the light that governs the universe. All this must be known, felt, lived and realized. In order to realize this truth, we need to eliminate the thinking mind, to dissolve it in the Universal Self " . Sorry if I have misunderstood the point, but I dont think the teaching has to be verbal. Thoughts can be transmitted without spoken words, through mental transmission. Please pardon me if I misunderstood your statements (or the general discussion here). Hari Om, Vaibhav. Forgot the famous last words? Access your message archive online. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 Humble praNAms respected Sri Sadananda prabhuji Hare Krishna Thanks for your kind clarification...but my inquisitive mind still asking some more questions..kindly bear with that... Sri Sada prabhuji : Just a clarification from my understanding. Sarvajnaa does not mean he literally knows everything - it means he 'as though' knows everything. bhaskar : Yes, sarvajnA does not mean he knows everything...but at the same time atleast I think he would be in a position to teach the subject (Atma jnAna) in which he has mastery :-)) Ofcourse, you'd agree with me disciple is not asking brahmanishTa about quantum mechanics or pizza to test his skills...he is asking about his favourite subject i.e. brahma jnAna is it not :-)) Sri Sada prabhuji : Brahmajna means one who firmly established in the knowledge that Brahman alone is the cause for all and he himself is the Brahman. bhaskar : There is one more doubt stalks out from my mind now.(I'm afraid, I may end this whole janma only in asking questions :-)) ..To become brahmanishTa whether shrOtrIyatva or shAstrajnAna is required or not?? If shAstra jnAna is a *must* for a brahma jnAna, then we cannot call a person as brahmanishTa coz. he is lacking shAstra jnAna..On the other hand, if a person become *brahmanishTa* without *knowing* shAstra, then that brahmanishTa can passon this jnAna (which is not gained through shAstrajnAna) to his disciple also no?? After all our ultimate goal is to achieve the status of brahmanishTa not to remain mere shrOtrIya life long is it not?? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar 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.