bhagavan sri ramana maharshi (and a related announcement

January 9, 2008

hariH OM! dear members and friends,

i have an announcement to make, but before i do i would like to share

some thoughts on guru ramana (who incidentally relates to the

announcement).

we should realize the fact that we have the ability to see with our

own eyes a jnani of the highest order. (note: although he himself

didnt ascribe to levels or gradations of jnanis, TRIPURA RAHASYA

does; and i must say, in this rare case, i defer to the latter, which

in fact helps support what i'm about to discuss. [see asterisk

below].) such witnessing has a hugely inestimable advantage over

merely reading the teachings of sankara, vayasa, or krishna, or even

buddha or jesus, or their biographies, for example. to be able to

see with one's own eyes the face and demeanor of a jagatguru is the

true barometer of their caliber--and i should emphasize, not such

value as individuals, per se, but as highly evolved souls capable of

transmitting/transfering the incomprehensible power of brahman.

i'd also like to point out is that ramana is a *modern* sage speaking

in a language suited to a commensurately evolved humanity, whose

psyche has changed considerably since [for argument's sake] 400 ad,

not to mention 560 bc.

the video, THE SAGE OF ARUNACHALA, avails a precious one minute

darshan of ramana, where if one has even a moderate degree of

spiritual insight, they would become instant believers...recognizing

beyond any doubt that here is indeed a jnani steeped in

sahajasamadhi. what one witnesses radiating through his eyes is

nothing less than the primal essence of brahman Itself. e.g.

reporting from my own experience, the first two dozen or so viewings

of his darshan brought tears to my eyes..a few times even flowing.

experiencing such catharsis is in itself priceless!

i cant stress enough the potential benefits yielded from *extensive*

reading about the life and times of sri ramana, culminating in

experiencing his darshan! this is especially true for anyone still

plagued by doubts and questions...where--depending on the soul's

development--they will evaporate in direct proportion to the effort

exerted in reading and discovery.

it should also be emphasized that ramana did not adhere to any

traditional observances re varna, ashrama, or even any specific yoga

marga--which generally he advised should be selected according to the

individual's needs and inclination. he broke almost all the rules.

moreover, and perhaps most significant of all, he was *inclusive*,

copiously affirming buddha and jesus, as well as other indian sages.

this factor alone has enormous implications for freeing one's mind

and heart! for, there's nothing more constricting and alienating

than embracing the idea that one's own spiritual path is not only

superior but the only true path to enlightenment. do not *all*

religions boast the same? how their religion is the ONLY true way?

obviously. of course this isn't what led ramana to be inclusive of

all paths in all ages and cultures; he concluded such because he had

the key to unlock the universal and timeless truth available to all

of humanity. that it is so and subsequently recognizable further

serves to reinforce the fact that one has indeed found the Way! (i

would be more than happy to list and explain the similarities found

in the major world religions, if anyone is interested. i would just

need some time to do so.)

regarding the recent thread " what will it be like, " nairji's post,

for example, advocates, to my understanding, what is a common [and

extremely debilitating] misconception when he stated " if my

understanding of advaita is right, [a jnani] ought to be at least

what I am not. He is `aham bramhasmi' personified. Brahman as a

knower of Brahman. His ego and individuality have evaporated without

a trace. He has attained total chittashuddhi. "

again, this is the result of a basic and unfortunately all-too-common

misunderstanding regarding the nature or state of a jnani (i.e based

on the ideal of sthithaprajna, the pure wisdom state or the

embodiment of [the totality of] Knowledge...i.e. the knower of

brahman.)

this *mandates* the attainment of a state elevated to a

transcendental absolute or manifestation of *perfection*.

from the relative perspective (vyavahara), it's evidently an

archetype in human nature to postulate radical polarities when it

comes to political, religious, and even metaphysical philosophies.

extremes from right to wrong, good to [so-called] evil, perfection to

imperfection.

hopefully, the following will shed " proveable " light on the above.

it's important to note that with all i've read by or about him

(approx 25 titles), which exposed, for example, rare instances of

conduct violating what many would regard as something less than their

exalted ideal of the perfected state of a jnani, my opinion hasn't

changed in the least. in fact it only reinforced what i already

understood to be the case, even with jnanis of the highest

order...jagat-gurus included. obviously he was a near-perfect

personality; nevertheless he was *not* perfect. being subjected to

and working through a human BMI, he had no choice but to [albeit

rarely] succumb to various upadhis and even vasanas. this has a

bearing on the recent thread " what will it be like? " i would say it

will be exactly as it already is sans the tremendous deviation

wrought by the insideous habit of the judgmental mind. if one were

capable of putting the mind aside, in effect not taking to heart its

petty judgments about one's state of being, one will discover the

innate drone of bliss everpresent in one's natural state. i.e.

there's nothing we need to gain, only something we need to eliminate.

namaskaar,

frank

____________________

and now for the announcement: this past 11dec07, my wife gave birth

to an 8lb8oz baby boy, who we named raman aian maiello! his photo

can be found on my website at

http://geocities.com/egodust/fmpagebio1.html (note: please refain

from responding with posts merely limited to congratulations in the

forum.)

____________________

* note (from first paragraph):

seshadri swami, a neighbor of sri ramana [on the hill arunachala], on

a few occasions debated and disagreed on quite fundamental issues re

the nature of the world. yet ramana regarded him to be fully

enlightened (vide: SELF REALIZATION by b.v. narasimha swami). this

has enormous implications. first and foremost, there is no pat

answer to what can be propounded or theorized re the nature of the

world, what really is or isn't, or how so-called jnanis or ajnanis

experience it. this is why sankara said it was indescribable. it is

and will (MUST!) forever remain a mystery without a resolution.

(and, as i've stated before, there's a good reason why. we [as

brahman] wouldn't want it any other way. for if there were a pat and

simple resolution [to What Is], the wonder of life along with its

aesthetic beauty, would wither and die the saddest imaginable

death!) and the more one grasps for a definitive answer, the deeper

and more unsettling becomes the question.. (in 1998, through me came

this 'formula' for dealing with this enigmatic phenomenon: " act as

though everything matters; be as though nothing does. " )

January 10, 2008

ego dust-ji :

i am reading ypur post from the business center computer at this

five star hotel 'Crown plaza' in Gurgaon near new delhi , india.

Although i am enjoying the luxurious comfort of as five star hptel

with all the Ambience , my state of mind is the same as it was in

the ashram room at the Ramnashram i visited a few years ago ! btw ,

i am not a jnani in the swendse in which advaitins use the word .

But i must confess there are gradations of jnani - this is

explicitly stated both in Tripura Rahasya and Varaha purana .

Jivanmuktadom is a one time occurance but jnanis ( of various

gradations as mentioned in Tripura Rahasya - adhama jnani and

madhyama jnani take time time to mature into uttama jnani - unless

all the vasanas are conquered , you cannot reach the state of a

jivanmukta . Ramana bhagvan was a cut above the rest ! i don't think

we need to worry about Ramana's bmi at all - for his bmi can be seen

by one us who have the bmis! smile:}

congrats my friend on the birth of your son , Alan! I am sure he

will be like you - divine !

let me leave you with this quote

" One should not be deceived by the external appearance of a jnani

[self-Realized Sage]. Thus Vedantachudamani (verse 181). Its meaning

is as follows:

Although a jivanmukta [liberated man] associated with body may,

owing to his prarabdha [the karma given to one which is to be worked

out through living], appear to lapse into ignorance or wisdom, yet

he is only pure like the ether [akasa] which is always itself clear,

whether covered by dense clouds or cleared of clouds by currents of

air. He always revels in the Self alone, like a loving wife taking

pleasure with her husband alone, though she attends on him with

things obtained from others (by way of fortune, as determined by her

prarabdha). Though he remains silent like one devoid of learning,

yet his supineness is due to the implicit duality of the vaikhari

vak [spoken words] of the Vedas; his silence is the highest

expression of the realised non-duality which is after all the true

content of the Vedas.

Though he instructs his disciples, yet he does not pose as a teacher

in the full conviction that the teacher and disciple are mere

conventions born of illusion [maya], and so he continues to utter

words (like akasvani); if on the other hand he mutters words

incoherently like a lunatic, it is because his experience is

inexpressible like the words of lovers in embrace. If his words are

many and fluent like those of an orator, they represent the

recollection of his experience, since he is the unmoving non-dual

One without any desire awaiting fulfillment. Although he may appear

grief-stricken like any other man in bereavement, yet he evinces

just the right love of and pity for the senses which he earlier

controlled before he realised that they were mere instruments and

manifestations of the Supreme Being. When he seems keenly interested

in the wonders of the world, he is only ridiculing the ignorance

born of superimposition. If he appears indulging in sexual

pleasures, he must be taken to enjoy the ever-inherent Bliss of the

Self, which, divided Itself into the individual self and the

Universal Self, delights in their reunion to regain Its original

Nature. If he appears wrathful he means well to the offenders. All

his actions should be taken to be only divine manifestations on the

plane of humanity. There should not arise even the least doubt as to

his being emancipated while yet alive. He lives only for the good of

the world. "

Sri Ramanaarpanamastu !

January 10, 2008

But i must confess there are gradations of jnani - this is explicitly

stated both in Tripura Rahasya and Varaha purana .

praNAms

Hare Krishna

Would anybody mind to give more details on this gradations of jnAni-s in

above mentioned texts?? I am curious to know whether it is a talk about

gradations in jnAni-s or gradations in jnAna-s?? When it comes to

Atmaikatva paramArtha jnAna, I dont think we can say that there is lower &

higher paramArtha jnAna to put highest jnAna in different

compartments..jnAna is ONE & without second, we dont say my knowledge of

rope is partial coz. I do still have some partial misconceptions of snake

on rope...I cannot have half rope knowledge & half snake

knowledge....Either I should be jnAni or ajnAni..I cannot say I've half

knowledge of my svarUpa, if that is the case that state is still ajnAna (or

in the sphere of avidyA) only not paripUrNa jnAna...so, IMO, it should be

*full (pUrNa)* either way..However, for some other objective knowledges

(vishaya jnAna or prApanchika jnAna) this gradations in knowledge may

applicable..but definitely not applicable to Atmaikatva svarUpa jnAna.

Kindly correct me if I said anything wrong.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

January 10, 2008

In this respect the following extract from the commentary of Swami

Chandrasekhara Bharati of Sringeri Sarada Peetham, (who was himself

considered to be a jIvanmukta) on Vivekachudamani, sloka 454, may be

relevant.

Though j~nAna is of only one (identical) nature), yet, due to

difference in the content of samAdhi, those who have attained

brahman-realization are distinguished as brahmavit, brahmavidvaraH,

brahmavidvarIyAn, and brahmavidvarishTaH on the basis of the

distinctions of levels called sattvApatti (abiding in the

sattvaguNa, or in the sadvastu), asamsakti (non-attachment to

anything external), padArtha-abhAvanA (obliviousness to all

objects), and turyagA (going to the transcendent). Among these, he

who has reached the level of turyagA, who is a brahmavidvarishTa, is

one of the nature of the attributeless brahman. He does not come out

from samAdhi by himself, nor can he be brought out by the effort of

others. To such a one, the three kinds of karma do not apply. The

brahmavidvarIyAn awakes to the world when so stimulated by others.

Then he is connected with prArabdha. This is like Prahlada getting

out of his samAdhi upon hearing the sound of the conch of Lord

VishNu. Brahmavidvara, who is a sthitaprajna, gets out of his

samAdhi of his own accord by the force of his own karma and joy and

sorrow pertain to him. Brahmavits are those like sage Yajnavalkya

who adopt sannyAsa for the fruition of their j~nAna.

S.N.Sastri

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> >

Would anybody mind to give more details on this gradations of jnAni-

s in

> above mentioned texts??

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

January 10, 2008

Namaste Frank-ji.

Yours 38909.

A very inspiring post indeed.

Every time I look at the divine visage of Bhagawan, particularly into

those shining eyes, I am also moved to tears!

Before I forget, hearty congrats on your being the father of baby

Ramana! Blessed be both the baby and his family.

About your comments on the thread " What It Will be Like? " , kindly

visit the following links. Hope you won't conclude Sw. Krishnanandaji

is advocating unfortunate misconceptions. (Honestly, I am

incompetent to decide where Swamiji stands with reference to our List

objectives and Shankara).

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/realis/realis_6a.html

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/realis/realis_6b.html

I can't also help quoting Swamiji extensively from the above links

knowing fully well that I am breaking List guidelines:

QUOTE

The Prarabdha in the Jivanmukta is not experienced by his

consciousness; it is not a content of the Absolute-Consciousness; it

is existent only to the other ignorant Jivas who perceive the

existence or the movements of his body.

UNQUOTE

I have quoted Bhagawan here as something exactly similar. Like we say

beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, the so-called jnAni's

characteristics are in the eyes of the ajnAni.

QUOTE AGAIN

Much has been said and written by speculative geniuses on the

relation between the perfectly liberated soul and the universe. If

liberation means the experience of the Infinite, the question of the

liberated soul's relation to the universe is a puerile one. It is

like speculating over the relation of the sky to the sky. It is

stated by some that the liberated condition need not annihilate the

perception of plurality. If we say that the Absolute can perceive

plurality, we go against all sense and reason. Or, can we hold that

the liberated soul retains individuality? In that case, the liberated

soul would become non-eternal, for all that is individual is a part

of the process of the universe. Further, what do we mean by

plurality? Plurality is the intervention of non-being or space

between things. Then we have to say that the Absolute has internal

differentiations and external relations, which would mar the

indivisibleness and the secondlessness of the Absolute. No perception

is possible without the intervention of non-being in

undifferentiatedness. If the Self is the All, there cannot be non-

Self in Self, and as long as there is perception of the non-Self, it

cannot be the liberated state. Nor can we understand the argument

that there can be any duty for the liberated soul. It is erroneous to

believe that as long as all individuals are not liberated, no

individual can have liberation. There is no intrinsic relation

between the karma of one individual and of another, except in the

sense that there is a mutually determining cosmic relationship of all

individuals so long as they live in particularised states of

consciousness. When there is destruction of thought, there is

annihilation of all forms. Forms cannot exist when there is no

differentiation among them, and the differentiation of forms is the

work of the cognizing consciousness. There cannot be objective

cognition in the Absolute. It cannot be said that, because forms

exist for others even though one individual may attain freedom, the

freed soul can have objective dealings. There is no cogency in the

statement that the liberated being can have any relation with any

thing, for it transcends the cosmic relationship of created entities

which flow into one another as reciprocally determining forces. As

long as there is relation, there is some thing external to the Self,

and as long as there is experience of something other than the self,

there is no Absolute-Experience. The Absolute is not bound by the

rules and regulations of the worlds and the thoughts of other

individuals in any way. The fact that many others remain unliberated

even when one soul is freed, does not compel the liberated one to

have relations with others, for the simple reason that the liberated

one is no other than the trans-cosmic Absolute. And, moreover, when

the thinking process expires in the Absolute, there cannot be

perception of other unredeemed individuals. We have no grounds to say

that the form of the world exists after Self-realisation, for forms

can exist only when existence is divided within itself. But this has

no validity for the Absolute, which is Existence itself. Division

creates individuality which is phenomenal.

So long as there is consciousness of the reality of an objective

universe and the individuals, one cannot be said to be a liberated

one, for he is, then, only another individual, however much superior

he may be to others in the state of his consciousness. Liberation is

experience of the highest Reality. He who perceives that there are

others and they are unliberated, cannot be a liberated soul himself,

for the liberated is one with the Absolute which is extra-relational.

A liberated one does not think. He merely is. There can be no

compromise with self-limitation in liberation, however slight it may

be.

The liberated soul becomes the All. Experience of Pure Being is the

criterion of liberation. The liberated soul itself becomes the One

Self of all; how, then, can it have the consciousness of limitation

or of the act of redeeming the unliberated? And, how, again, can an

unredeemed soul redeem another unredeemed soul? The human mind is al

ways obsessed by the delusion of the social bond that connects

different individuals. It cannot think except in terms of society,

family, relations, etc., connected with the separatist ego. He who is

concerned with the world is only a magnified family man and is not

free from the sense of separateness characterising mortal nature.

Even several cultured thinkers have been limited by a humanitarian

view of life. Their philosophies are consequently tainted by

humanistic and social considerations. They are not dispassionate in

their trying to understand the deeper truths, and are deceived by an

inordinate love for the human being. The infection has led them even

up to the dangerous point of attempting to argue that none can be

liberated until social salvation is effected! This view is the

outcome of the interference of materialism with spiritual absolutism.

Man's vision is so narrow that he is concerned merely with things

that he sees. He fails to take an integral view of the essence of

existence as a whole, because of his experience and reason being

limited to empirical reality. To the Absolute, the world is not a

historical process, but being. To the ignorant individual samsara

appears to be from eternity to eternity, an undivided super-rational

appearance, though in the Absolute there is cessation of samsara.

Since different individuals are in different stages of evolution, and

as also there can be nothing to prevent the entering of the soul into

the Absolute on the rise of Knowledge, there cannot be any such thing

as social salvation or ending of the historical process of the

universe.

If the Absolute does not have any external or internal relation to

itself, the liberated one cannot have any such relation to the

universe, because the distinction of the individual and the universe

is negated in the Absolute. It is illogical to say, at the same time,

that " Liberation means Absolute-Experience " and that " the liberated

soul is concerned with the work of redeeming others, and even on

getting liberated, retains its individuality. " Relative activity and

Absolute Being are not consistent with each other. If it is argued

that both these are compatible, it is done at the expense of

consistency. The Absolute has nothing second to it, and hence no

desire and no action. Anything that falls short of the Absolute

cannot be regarded as the state of Liberation. The jiva remains a

centre of universal activity in the states of Virat, Hiranyagarbha

and Ishvara, but not in Brahman. If what the Sruti says- " He does not

return " - is true, there can be no reverting to individuality after

Absolute-Experience. There cannot be action without consciousness of

plurality, and plurality-consciousness is not the nature of the

Absolute. All attempts to reconcile Reality with appearance, taking

them as two realities, are based on a faith in the ultimate validity

of empirical experience. We want to know the beyond without stepping

over to the beyond from binding phenomena. We wish to plant our two

legs in two ships moving in opposite directions, and then cross the

ocean. We desire to know something absolutely without ourselves being

that thing, an impossibility! The tendency of some of the modern

thinkers to struggle to give a reality to objective experience and

multiplicity-consciousness even in the highest Reality is the effect

of a failure to discriminate between the Real and the apparent and is

due to an unwise attachment to phenomenal diversity. As long as

philosophers are content to be mere dogmatic theorizers, they can

never succeed in determining the nature of Reality, or of bondage and

liberation. It is but intellectual perversion that causes some to

twist even the metaphysical truths to answer to the empirical demands

of man. The fact that we see things is not the proof for their

existence.

It is said that, because the individual is inseparable from its

environment, the liberated soul has to work for the redemption of the

other unliberated souls, if its own salvation is to be complete. This

argument is, again, limited to the souls that are still in the

cosmos, that move in the realms of Virat, Hiranyagarbha and Ishvara,

but is irrelevant to Brahmanubhava. It is wrong to think that the

liberated soul has any external environment with which it may have

relations. It is Infinitude itself. Further, each individual is

restricted by its own antahkarana, the mode of objectified thinking,

and hence, its world of experience cannot be identical with the

worlds of others. Man is cheated by the notion that each individual

has the same psychological background and constitution as the other,

and that the environment of one individual includes those of all

other individuals, also. The environment of one is different from

that of the other, and, therefore, the liberation of one individual

does not have any relation to the states of other individuals. If

everyone is to think alike, there would be no diversity of living

beings and there would be a wholesale salvation of the universe. If

individuals think differently, one cannot have an intrinsic relation

to the other. No doubt, everything is comprehended in the Absolute,

and so each individual, as long as it exists as such, influences the

universe by its existence and active individualistic consciousness,

and vice versa, since there is a real Unity behind all individuals.

But this mutual interaction is secondary, and does not affect the

primary factor of liberation. Moreover, we have no right to give

independent realities to the subject and the object, for all

plurality is like a dream in the Universal Consciousness, and to it

there can be no question of the existence of unredeemed souls or an

objective reality. Bondage is in each individual separately and not

in the universal unity. In any case, the problem of the redemption of

the unredeemed souls by the liberated one does not arise. There is no

wrong to be set aright, no error to be converted, no ugliness to be

banished from life, except with reference to one's own self. When the

self is purified, the Absolute Truth is revealed in it, and in its

infinite knowledge it can set right the universe by its very

existence, or consciousness of perfection. There is no ultimate

relation amongst the imaginary environments of different individuals,

even if they interpenetrate one another. They have a transcendental

oneness, and an empirical phenomenality.

UNQUOTE

PraNAms.

Madathil Rajendran Nair

_____________________________

advaitin , " frank maiello " <egodust wrote:

..........

> regarding the recent thread " what will it be like, " nairji's post,

> for example, advocates, to my understanding, what is a common [and

> extremely debilitating] misconception when he stated " if my

> understanding of advaita is right, [a jnani] ought to be at least

> what I am not. He is `aham bramhasmi' personified. Brahman as a

> knower of Brahman. His ego and individuality have evaporated

without a trace. He has attained total chittashuddhi. "

> again, this is the result of a basic and unfortunately all-too-

>common misunderstanding regarding the nature or state of a jnani >

(i.e based on the ideal of sthithaprajna, the pure wisdom state or

the embodiment of [the totality of] Knowledge...i.e. the knower of

> brahman.)

>

> this *mandates* the attainment of a state elevated to a

> transcendental absolute or manifestation of *perfection*.

>> namaskaar,

> frank

>

> ____________________

>

January 10, 2008

ptabuji ,

Shastriji has already answered your questions your beautifully - if

you would kindly go back and read my post on Jnana yoga as explained

in Varaha purana - you will notice that it also emphasizes the

different levels of jnana based on sattvApatti (abiding in the

sattvaguNa, or in the sadvastu), asamsakti (non-attachment to

anything external), padArtha-abhAvanA (obliviousness to all

objects), and turyagA (going to the transcendent_ etc. The advautic

text Tripura rahasya also talks about differnt kinds of jnanis or

stages of jnana !

prabhuji , would you place Sri RAMANA BHAGWAN AND Balasekhar IN THE

SAME CATEGORY OF JNANIS ? OR BETTER STILL, WOULD YOU PLACE SWAMI

VIVEKANANDA AND PARAMAHAMSA RAMAKRISHNA as same type of jnanis ? or

better still would you consider yourself an equal to Sadaji or

shastriji ? better still, where would you place 'little' me in these

scheme of jnanis ?

while it is no doubt true that one Jnanahood recognizes no

distinctions bu distintintions remain as long as one sees a jnani

with our finite BMI!

AFTER READING YOUR POST , Prabhji , the following verse from Srimad

Bhagvat gita comes to mind

tesam satata-yuktanam

bhajatam priti-purvakam

dadami buddhi-yogam tam

yena mam upayanti te (-10 -10)

how many of us are fortunate to acquire this Buddhi yogam in the

couse of one lifetime ? but let me assure you one thing -

any 'sadhana ' done in this lifetime never gets wasted - rather it

helps us to move forward in the next lifetime also ! this is alo in

the srimad bhagvat gita !

hari aum

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> But i must confess there are gradations of jnani - this is

explicitly

> stated both in Tripura Rahasya and Varaha purana .

>

> praNAms

>

January 11, 2008

My humble praNAms to respected Sri Sastri prabhuji & all the blessed

advaitins

Hare Krishna

First of all, my humble prostrations to Sri Sastri prabhuji for providing

the very relevant references with regard to gradations in jnAni-s. Since

these gradations are confirmed by none otherthan Jagadguru H.H. Sri

Chandrashekhara Bharati MahaswaminaH, who is jIvanmukta himself, I have

absolutely no voice to rise any objections on it....My heart says, simply

accept the declaration of this mahAtma with shraddhA since it is the

*amruta vAni* of jIvan mukta...But my mind, which has been arduously

engaged in shankara bhAshya siddhAnta nirNaya, does not ready to accept it

*as it is*...It is throwing multiple counter questions on these gradations

of jnAni-s, based on its understanding of philosophy of advaita...I humbly

request the prabhuji-s of this list, not to treat my observations is

arrogance & I am fastidiously daring to question mahAsannidhAnams

conclusions with my biased understanding of shankara siddhAnta....I am

seeking clarification on these issues with a genuine interest of a jignAsu.

Kindly bear with my ignorance.

Sri S prabhuji :

Though j~nAna is of only one (identical) nature), yet, due to difference in

the content of samAdhi, those who have attained brahman-realization are

distinguished as brahmavit, brahmavidvaraH, brahmavidvarIyAn, and

brahmavidvarishTaH on the basis of the distinctions of levels called

sattvApatti (abiding in the sattvaguNa, or in the sadvastu), asamsakti

(non-attachment to anything external), padArtha-abhAvanA (obliviousness to

all objects), and turyagA (going to the transcendent).

bhaskar :

From the observation of Sri mahAswaminaH I am getting an impression that to

attain *any* status of jnAni (may it be brahmavit, brahmavidvaraH,

brahmavidvarIyAn etc.) the experience of *samAdhi* is must!! going by the

definition of samAdhi & its experiencer, I think the term samAdhi used here

is related to patanjali's yOga samAdhi or nirvikalpa samAdhi, which is

peculiar & a mystic experience of an individual...From these descriptions

of jnAni-s can we conclude that *without* experience of *samAdhi* there is

no possibility of jnAna ?? Is it the stand of H.H. here?? kindly clarify.

Moreover, shankara advises sAdhana chatushtaya before persuing the jnAna

mArga and in that sAdhana, abiding in satva guNa, non-attachment to

anything external (ehAmutra phala bhOga virAga), vairAgya etc. are also

sAdhana only, very much pre-requisite of mumukshu in jnAna mArga...how can

it be taken as yard stick to measure the *achievement* of a jnAni in

brahmavidvarIyan, brahmavit etc. category?? Kindly clarify.

Again, if the samAdhi experience is the must for brahma sAkshAtkAra, why

shankara should have repeatedly affirmed that : ' through the means of

acquiring padArtha jnAna if the mumukshu discerns the purport of the

vEdAntic sentences (shAstra vAkya) mere on that count itself one gets the

ultimate and thereafter to sustain this jnAna there is no need of any

further effort/ pramAna '

Sri S prabhuji :

Among these, he who has reached the level of turyagA, who is a

brahmavidvarishTa, is one of the nature of the attributeless brahman. He

does not come out from samAdhi by himself, nor can he be brought out by the

effort of others. To such a one, the three kinds of karma do not apply.

bhaskar :

This means, among various types of jnAni-s, brahmavidvarishTa is ranked

No.1 & he is on par with nirguNa brahman or he is nirguNa brahman

himself...but it is to be understood that the *attainment* of this jnAna

results in *physical death* of that jnAni !!! and nobody will be there to

teach this highest teaching of this brahmavidvarishTa's experience in

samAdhi coz. the person who has experienced this trance state cannot come

back from that state to share his divine experience nor anybody there to

give the highest teaching of advaita to mortals like us!!!

In short, here above, it is said that only *after* the fall of body alone

the complete mukti or paripUrNa Atmaikatva jnAna ensues...So, it is quite

clear that the jnAna which is of the highest order can happen or can be

achieved only *posthumously*!! Is this the conclusion we find in shankara

bhAshya prabhuji?? does not shankara himself clearly declares that a jnAni

who has got rid of upAdhi saMbandha though alive is *asharIri* (unembodied)

alone??

And if I may be permitted to ask some straight forward question, going by

the above gradations, where can we put mahAjnAni-s like bhagavan

ramaNamaharshi, shankara bhagavadpAda, Ramakrishna parama hamsa etc. etc.

?? can we conclude that they were not brahmavidvarishTa-s (highest

jnAni-s) at the most they were mere brahmavits or brahmavidvarIya-s, since

they were embodied when teaching brahma jnAna ?? Kindly tell me in which

category these mahAtmA-s can be put??

Sri S prabhuji :

The brahmavidvarIyAn awakes to the world when so stimulated by others. Then

he is connected with prArabdha. This is like Prahlada getting

out of his samAdhi upon hearing the sound of the conch of Lord VishNu.

bhaskar :

how can it be possible to get stimulated by others when he is not

maintaining his individuality in brahmavidvarIyAn type of samAdhi?? if

there is individuality in this samAdhi it hardly matter whether he comes on

his own or stimulation by others...is it not prabhuji??

Sri S prabhuji :

Brahmavidvara, who is a sthitaprajna, gets out of his samAdhi of his own

accord by the force of his own karma and joy and

sorrow pertain to him.

bhaskar :

But the gIta, which gives the detailed description of stithaprajna does not

say that he is subject to joy and sorrow...duhkEshu anudvigna manaH,

sukhEshu vigataspruhaha, na prahurushyEt priyaM prApya, no dvijEt

prApyachApriyam lord's assurance confirms this.

Sri S prabhuji :

Brahmavits are those like sage Yajnavalkya who adopt sannyAsa for the

fruition of their j~nAna.

bhaskar :

that means yAjnAvalkya-janaka, yAjnAvalkya-gArgi, yAjnAvalkya-maitrEyi

dialogues are all from mere brahmavit who is *yet* to realize the

ultimate..and we are taking this brahmavit's words as shruti pramANa!!!

BTW, kindly clarify what is the difference between brahmavit & mere

shrOtrIya??

Sri Shastri prabhuji, I know you have kindfully shared only H.H. view

points & there is nothing your own observation....But humble request you &

other prabhuji-s of this list is to evaluate my view points also & kindly

let me know where exactly I strayed from the teachings of shankara and

anubhava.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

January 11, 2008

dear adiji and nairji,

i will reply to your messages in the coming days.

for now i would like to just say that the problem with acknowledging

one's *already existing* state of Self-realization is far too simple

for the human mind's ages-wrought habit of making mountains out of

anthills when it's faced with solving what it's convinced is a

massively intricate problem......which it is NOT!

herein lies our most fundamental dilemma of all!!

herein begets our behavior like dogs chasing our tails!

ever see a dog chase its tail? it's really a riot to see; but it's

really not funny at all watching people do it...

(please forgive my cynicism...i just had an argument with my brother-

in-law about the impending collapse of the US economy.)

frank

January 11, 2008

Namaste Frank-ji.

You know an argument made you cynical. Yet, you had the freedom not

to carry it forward to the List. You didn't exercise that freedom!

What is the distance between your freedom not to be cynical and your

state of not being able to exercise it? Do you think you have to

traverse it?

You (and I too!) understand that we are all already fullness. Yet we

(I at least) behave like limited beings. What is the distance

between our deluded behaviour and the fullness we all untiringly

profess we are?

It is to traverse this distance that we talk about attaining

chittashuddhi and all that and follow a rather arduous methodology.

That is not a dog's chase of its own tail. Your analogy was

unfortunate, to say the least.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

______________

advaitin , " frank maiello " <egodust wrote:

>

> dear adiji and nairji,

>

> i will reply to your messages in the coming days.

>

> for now i would like to just say that the problem with

acknowledging

> one's *already existing* state of Self-realization is far too

simple

> for the human mind's ages-wrought habit of making mountains out of

> anthills when it's faced with solving what it's convinced is a

> massively intricate problem......which it is NOT!

>

> herein lies our most fundamental dilemma of all!!

>

> herein begets our behavior like dogs chasing our tails!

>

> ever see a dog chase its tail? it's really a riot to see; but it's

> really not funny at all watching people do it...

>

> (please forgive my cynicism...i just had an argument with my

brother-

> in-law about the impending collapse of the US economy.)

>

> frank

>

January 11, 2008

prabhuji :

Since you are such a 'voracious' reader and an ardent follower of

vedanta , i would once again humbly request you to read the 'varaha

purana ' and Tripura rahasya texts to understand how the gradations

of different stages of jnanis occur ! please , as students , we must

do our HOMEWORK before putting streeses and strains on our most

beloved and respected Shastriji - He is too kind and gentle and i am

sure he would answer all your doubts very satisfactorily - i am sure

other prabhujis also would satisfy your intellectual curiosity !

please go through these links one more time specially the link on

Tripura Rahsaya - it has extensive literature on 'Samadhi'

here are the links

VARAHA PURANA

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/varaha.htm

http://www.astrojyoti.com/tripurarahasya.htm

prabhuji , may i ( this non prabhuji) share this important para from

Varaha purana ?

" The Rishi) Suka is a Mukta (emancipated person). (The Rishi)

Vamadeva is a Mukta. There are no others (who have attained

emancipation) than through these (viz., the two paths of these two

Rishis). Those brave men who follow the path of Suka in this world

become Sadyo-Muktas (viz., emancipated) immediately after (the body

wear away);

While those who always follow the path of Vamadeva (i.e.,

Vedanta) in this world are subject again and again to rebirths and

attain Krama (gradual) emancipation, through Yoga, Sankhya and

Karmas associated with Sattva (Guna).

Thus there are two paths laid down by the Lord of Devas (viz.,)

the Suka and Vamadeva paths. The Suka path is called the bird's

path; while the Vamadeva path is called the ant's path. "

to be honest with you , prabhuji , why cannot a brahmajnani be a

shotriya and vice versa ? in my mind , there is no doubt that our

Acharya was both a shotriya and a brahma jnani . As far as sri

Ramana is concerened , HE IS A BRAHMAJNANI and it is well known that

he was also familiar with all the scriptures ( what difference does

it make if chicken came first or egg came first) ? sri ramakrishna

had no formal education but after he attained brahma jnana , he was

quoting scriptures with ease and comfort ! IMHO , there is no

conflict between the two - one can be a shotriya as well as a brahma

jnani but all shotriyas are not necessarily brahmajnanis and all

brahmajnanis are not shotriyas! Jesus christ was a brahma jnani but

was he WELL VERSED IN THE UPNISHADS, VEDAS AND bHAGVAT GITA ? does

it even matter ? except t boost one's ego - knowledge of

scriptures ?

in Chandogya Upanishad, it s said " . It is not the knowledge of the

scriptures but the realization of the Self that brings liberation to

the spirit of man. " There is an episode in Chandogya Upanishad in

which Narada goes to Sanatkumara and tells him that he knows all the

scriptures and all the sciences and arts of his time, yet has no

knowledge of the Self.

sri Ramakrishna was ASKED mny times to describe what 'samadhi' is

and every time the word was mentioned , Sri Ramakrishna would go

into a state of Samadhi - he could not describe the samadhi

experience in words ! Now , sri ramana ! how could he even say

anything about Samadhi , for that great Being was always in a state

of Sahaja samadhi ( natural state) .... for jivanmuktas like Sri

Ramana . Samadhi is NOT A STATE BUT A NATURAL STATE !

ADI SHANKARA BHAGVADAPADA , SRI RAMANA BHAGVAN ETC ARE AVATARA

PURUSHAS .... they are not just mere Saints !

anyway - after reading Nairji's response to Ego dust ji - i am

reminded of the following " A cynic is one who knows the price of

everything and value of nothing ' and who is ignorant? we all are

till we realize the self ! As vivekchudamani says " When the

supreme reality is not understood, the study of the scriptures is

useless, and study of the scriptures is useless when the supreme

reality has been understood. " 59

but , prabhuji , you have raised some interesting questions and i am

sure when shastriji and sadaji tackle all your many doubts one by

one , we all will also have an opportunity to learn and delearn! for

some odd reason, sri anandaji is very quiet and we would love to

hear his 'take ' on this subject ! His own gurhji Sri Atmananda has

had many experiences of 'Samadhi ' which brings up another

interesting point .... i have read that omce a jnani

attains 'samadhi ' his body falls off in 21 days but not so with our

beloved paramahamsa Sr Ramakrishna - he used to get in and out of a

samadhi like an actir getting in and out of different costumes ? how

so ?

with warm regards

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> My humble praNAms to respected Sri Sastri prabhuji & all the

blessed

> advaitins

> Hare Krishna

>

> First of all, my humble prostrations to Sri Sastri prabhuji for

providing

> the very relevant references with regard to gradations in jnAni-

s. Since

> these gradations are confirmed by none otherthan Jagadguru H.H. Sri

> Chandrashekhara Bharati MahaswaminaH, who is jIvanmukta himself, I

have

> absolutely no voice to rise any objections on it....My heart

says, simply

> accept the declaration of this mahAtma with shraddhA since it is

the

> *amruta vAni* of jIvan mukta...But my mind, which has been

arduously

> engaged in shankara bhAshya siddhAnta nirNaya, does not ready to

accept it

> *as it is*...It is throwing multiple counter questions on these

gradations

> of jnAni-s, based on its understanding of philosophy of

advaita...I humbly

> request the prabhuji-s of this list, not to treat my observations

is

> arrogance & I am fastidiously daring to question mahAsannidhAnams

> conclusions with my biased understanding of shankara

siddhAnta....I am

> seeking clarification on these issues with a genuine interest of a

jignAsu.

> Kindly bear with my ignorance.

>

> Sri S prabhuji :

>

> Though j~nAna is of only one (identical) nature), yet, due to

difference in

> the content of samAdhi, those who have attained brahman-

realization are

> distinguished as brahmavit, brahmavidvaraH, brahmavidvarIyAn, and

> brahmavidvarishTaH on the basis of the distinctions of levels

called

> sattvApatti (abiding in the sattvaguNa, or in the sadvastu),

asamsakti

> (non-attachment to anything external), padArtha-abhAvanA

(obliviousness to

> all objects), and turyagA (going to the transcendent).

>

> bhaskar :

>

> From the observation of Sri mahAswaminaH I am getting an

impression that to

> attain *any* status of jnAni (may it be brahmavit, brahmavidvaraH,

> brahmavidvarIyAn etc.) the experience of *samAdhi* is must!!

going by the

> definition of samAdhi & its experiencer, I think the term samAdhi

used here

> is related to patanjali's yOga samAdhi or nirvikalpa samAdhi,

which is

> peculiar & a mystic experience of an individual...From these

descriptions

> of jnAni-s can we conclude that *without* experience of *samAdhi*

there is

> no possibility of jnAna ?? Is it the stand of H.H. here?? kindly

clarify.

>

> Moreover, shankara advises sAdhana chatushtaya before persuing the

jnAna

> mArga and in that sAdhana, abiding in satva guNa, non-attachment to

> anything external (ehAmutra phala bhOga virAga), vairAgya etc. are

also

> sAdhana only, very much pre-requisite of mumukshu in jnAna

mArga...how can

> it be taken as yard stick to measure the *achievement* of a jnAni

in

> brahmavidvarIyan, brahmavit etc. category?? Kindly clarify.

>

> Again, if the samAdhi experience is the must for brahma

sAkshAtkAra, why

> shankara should have repeatedly affirmed that : ' through the

means of

> acquiring padArtha jnAna if the mumukshu discerns the purport of

the

> vEdAntic sentences (shAstra vAkya) mere on that count itself one

gets the

> ultimate and thereafter to sustain this jnAna there is no need of

any

> further effort/ pramAna '

>

> Sri S prabhuji :

>

> Among these, he who has reached the level of turyagA, who is a

> brahmavidvarishTa, is one of the nature of the attributeless

brahman. He

> does not come out from samAdhi by himself, nor can he be brought

out by the

> effort of others. To such a one, the three kinds of karma do not

apply.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> This means, among various types of jnAni-s, brahmavidvarishTa is

ranked

> No.1 & he is on par with nirguNa brahman or he is nirguNa brahman

> himself...but it is to be understood that the *attainment* of this

jnAna

> results in *physical death* of that jnAni !!! and nobody will be

there to

> teach this highest teaching of this brahmavidvarishTa's experience

in

> samAdhi coz. the person who has experienced this trance state

cannot come

> back from that state to share his divine experience nor anybody

there to

> give the highest teaching of advaita to mortals like us!!!

>

> In short, here above, it is said that only *after* the fall of

body alone

> the complete mukti or paripUrNa Atmaikatva jnAna ensues...So, it

is quite

> clear that the jnAna which is of the highest order can happen or

can be

> achieved only *posthumously*!! Is this the conclusion we find in

shankara

> bhAshya prabhuji?? does not shankara himself clearly declares

that a jnAni

> who has got rid of upAdhi saMbandha though alive is *asharIri*

(unembodied)

> alone??

>

> And if I may be permitted to ask some straight forward question,

going by

> the above gradations, where can we put mahAjnAni-s like bhagavan

> ramaNamaharshi, shankara bhagavadpAda, Ramakrishna parama hamsa

etc. etc.

> ?? can we conclude that they were not brahmavidvarishTa-s (highest

> jnAni-s) at the most they were mere brahmavits or brahmavidvarIya-

s, since

> they were embodied when teaching brahma jnAna ?? Kindly tell me

in which

> category these mahAtmA-s can be put??

>

> Sri S prabhuji :

>

> The brahmavidvarIyAn awakes to the world when so stimulated by

others. Then

> he is connected with prArabdha. This is like Prahlada getting

> out of his samAdhi upon hearing the sound of the conch of Lord

VishNu.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> how can it be possible to get stimulated by others when he is not

> maintaining his individuality in brahmavidvarIyAn type of

samAdhi?? if

> there is individuality in this samAdhi it hardly matter whether he

comes on

> his own or stimulation by others...is it not prabhuji??

>

> Sri S prabhuji :

>

> Brahmavidvara, who is a sthitaprajna, gets out of his samAdhi of

his own

> accord by the force of his own karma and joy and

> sorrow pertain to him.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> But the gIta, which gives the detailed description of stithaprajna

does not

> say that he is subject to joy and sorrow...duhkEshu anudvigna

manaH,

> sukhEshu vigataspruhaha, na prahurushyEt priyaM prApya, no dvijEt

> prApyachApriyam lord's assurance confirms this.

>

> Sri S prabhuji :

>

> Brahmavits are those like sage Yajnavalkya who adopt sannyAsa for

the

> fruition of their j~nAna.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> that means yAjnAvalkya-janaka, yAjnAvalkya-gArgi, yAjnAvalkya-

maitrEyi

> dialogues are all from mere brahmavit who is *yet* to realize the

> ultimate..and we are taking this brahmavit's words as shruti

pramANa!!!

>

> BTW, kindly clarify what is the difference between brahmavit & mere

> shrOtrIya??

>

> Sri Shastri prabhuji, I know you have kindfully shared only H.H.

view

> points & there is nothing your own observation....But humble

request you &

> other prabhuji-s of this list is to evaluate my view points also

& kindly

> let me know where exactly I strayed from the teachings of shankara

and

> anubhava.

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

January 12, 2008

OOPS! i forgot to delete bhaskar prabhuji long and tedious mail

before sending in my response - i ask the moderators to forgive this

unintenional lapse on my part !i apologize for this .....

on another note , Ego dustji writes

((please forgive my cynicism...i just had an argument with my

brother-

in-law about the impending collapse of the US economy.)

ego dustji - nobody can be more worried about the impending collapse

of the US economy than this almost 65 year old lady about to

retire .... my 401 k investments have taken a real hit thereby

eroding my nest egg for retirement/ add to this the falling Real

estate market , my house has lost its equity in no time .... my

dreams of An Indian stay in my retitement days seems to be a remote

possibility on my meagre social security income .... and the fact

that Indian cutrrency is gaining in value against the US dollar is

also nor a very encouraging thought ! but guess what ! Am i cynical

or am i desperate ? As vedantin , we should know we really don't

need a lot of things to survive more so in our advancing years !

Simple living and high thinking should be our goal - When i was in

Ramanashram , i luved the four iddlis along with Chilli powder that

was served in the ashram kitchen along with a Filter coffee every

mrning! absolutely no variation to this menu ! but now in the five

star hotel, every morning i get all you can eat breakfast - idlis,

dosas , uttappams , poori bhaji , waffles , panckes , omelettes ,

etc etc etc but i cannot even dare to eat all this for fear of Sugar

going up or choloestrol getting elevated ! o , i just have a cofeee

and wheat toast! when the stomach is semi full, it thinks

of 'higher' things like Vedanta , moksha , samadhi etc ...when the

stomach is too full, all you can think of is 'sleep'... and on

another note , don't thonk five star hotels donot have 'mosquitoes' -

these nocturnal visitord do creep in sthealthily into my bed and i

have 'red' bug bites all over my arm! but the Ramanashram mosquitoes

are no ordinary mosquitoes - they are more 'spiritual' than these

hotel mosquitoes - when i was bitten by a ramanshram mosquito , i

always thought 'who am i ? am i this body ? no ! i am that .'

smile :-) VBut when hotel mosquitoes bite me , i am thinking

of 'material' things - do i need to have blood work done ? an i

prone to Maalria or Filaria !

Nairji has a point when he calls your analogy of dog chasing its own

tail a poor choice ! i will leave it at that !

Cynicism has no place in an advaitin's dictionary - more so in a new

father's life ! how are you going to teach baby Alan the importance

of higher Reason versus Lower Reason ?

egodustji - There is a lot of discussion hoing on in this group

about our donning different roles , whether Sri Ramana is a

jivanmukta and about 'sakshi etc etc .... but let me quote this

memorable words fron Shri Atmananda

" " ...Shakespeare, in his dramas, has created diverse characters of

conflicting types, each with a perfection possible to perfection

alone. A writer who has an individuality and character of his own

can successfully depict only characters of a nature akin to his own.

It is only one who stands beyond all characters, or in other words

as witness, that can be capable of such a wonderful performance as

Shakespeare has done. Therefore I say Shakespeare must have been a

jivan-mukta. "

now , advaitins will have a had time accepting Shakespeare as a

jivanmukta but not little 'me' Pray , who is a jivanmukta ?

love and regards

ps The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,

Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit

Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,

Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.

the rubaiyat - omar khayyam - 11th century

AND WHO IS TO SAY oMAR KHYYAM WAS NOT SELF REALIZED ?

January 12, 2008

Dear Shri Bhaskar,

I must honestly admit that I am not learned enough to answer the

qustions raised by you. I merely copied out what I found in a book.

It appears from what you write that some or all of these views may

go against Sri Sankara's views. I have not studied the matter from

this angle, nor do I have the capacity to take up such a study.If

you can enlighten me on these points I shall be extremely grateful.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

>First of all, my humble prostrations to Sri Sastri prabhuji for

providing

> the very relevant references with regard to gradations in jnAni-

s. Since

> these gradations are confirmed by none otherthan Jagadguru H.H. Sri

> Chandrashekhara Bharati MahaswaminaH, who is jIvanmukta himself, I

have

> absolutely no voice to rise any objections on it....>

bhaskar :

>

January 12, 2008

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

Revered Sri Sastriji , Respected Sri Bhasker,

The different grades of Brahmavits etc., which have been stated

in YogavasiShta and such similar texts, go against the very spirit of

the Upanishads and the teachings of Sri Shankara in his commentaries.

In Vedanta there are only two categories viz. either one is realized

or one is not realized. Vedantic realization is not like understanding

physical sciences. WHO HAS TO AWARD THE GRADES TO BRAHMAVIT?

In this connection please permit me to draw your kind attention

to Sloka 33 of the Adwaita Prakarana of Mandukya Karika and to

mantra 4-4-20 of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.I request the members to do

manana of these two in depth and draw the right conclusions regarding

the grades of Brahmavits.

One more point. The realization is svasAkShikam and

svAnuBavagamyam according to Sri Shankara.And also Sri Shankara

writes in his commentary to the Mantra 4-4-6 0f Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:

yO hi suShuptAvasthamiva nirviSESham advaitam

aluptacidrUpajyOtiHsvaBAvam AtmAnaM paSyati tasaiva akAmayamAnasya

karmABAvE gamanakAraNABAvAt prANAvAgAdayaH nOtkrAmanti |

kiM tu vidvAn sa ihaiva brahma yadyapi dEhavAniva lakShyatE sa

brahmaiva san brahmyApEti ||

The above commentary is self-explanatory which does not need

any explanation from any body at all.This should help to remove so

many misconceptions prevalent now a days in the world of Vedanta and

which are the greatest obstacles in the path of the science of REALITY.

I may please be pardoned for not providing the English

translation for the above quoted passage of Sri Shankara, as my

command over the English language is insufficient to bring out the

correct meaning and spirit of the original passage.

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

January 12, 2008

advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145 wrote:

>

> The different grades of Brahmavits etc., which have been stated

> in YogavasiShta and such similar texts, go against the very spirit of

> the Upanishads and the teachings of Sri Shankara in his commentaries.

> In Vedanta there are only two categories viz. either one is realized

> or one is not realized. Vedantic realization is not like understanding

> physical sciences. WHO HAS TO AWARD THE GRADES TO BRAHMAVIT?

Namaste,

Let us not be so glib and presumptuous as to pontificate on

Sringeri Acharyas going against Shankara Bhashyas!!!

If one wishes to understand the first-hand 'svanubhava', the

dialogues in the book " Yoga, Enlightenment and Perfection " between

Mahasvamigal Abhinava Vidyatirtha and a disciple, will open one's eyes.

On pp. 199-200, there is a reference to Sw. Vidyaranya's

Jivanmuktiviveka - Svarupasiddhiprayojana-Prakarana - explaining

the 'variants' of Jivanmukti.

The jnana-bhumikas mentioned in Yogavasishtha :

" ....The fourth plane termed sattvapatti (attainment of sattva) is of

the form of the fruit of the first threeand is characterised by the

direct realisation of the unity of the self and Brahman...

The Yogin who has reached the fourth plane is termed a brhamavid

(knowere of Brahman).

The fifth plane onwards are variants of jivanmukti.They stem from the

gradations in repose effected by engagement in nirvikalpa samadhi.

In the fifth plane [called asamsakti (detachment)], one emerges from

nirvikalpa samadhi on one's own.This yogin is called a brahmavidvara

(great knower of Brahman).

In the sixth plane [termed padarthabhavana(absence of objects)], one

emerges from nirvikalpa samadhi only when awakened by the persons

nearby. Such a yogin is termed brahmavidvariyan (greeater knower of

Brahman).

The yogin who has reached the seventh plane called turiya never emerges

from nirvikalpa samadhieither on his own or in response to the efforts

of another. Such a yogin is called a brahmavidvarishtha (best knower of

Brahman)...... "

January 12, 2008

advaitin , " frank maiello " <egodust wrote:

" act as though everything matters; be as though nothing does. "

Dear Frankji: I wish to share the following extract from the " Letters

from Sri Ramanasramam " by Suri Nagamma:

" HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING? "

" Before leaving Ramanashram, a visitor approached Bhagavan one day

with great hesitation and said, in humble tones, " Swami, the people

sitting here always ask you something and you give them some replies.

When I see that, I also feel tempted to enquire, but I do not know

what to ask you. How then can I get mukti? "

Bhagavan, looking at him endearingly and smiling, said,

" How do you know that you do not know anything? " He said,

" After I came here and heard the questions asked by all these

people and the replies Bhagavan is pleased to give them, the

feeling that I do not know anything has come upon me. " " Then

it is all right. You have found out that you do not know

anything; that itself is enough. What more is required? " said

Bhagavan. " How to attain mukti by that much alone, Swami? "

said the questioner. " Why not? There is some one to know

that he does not know anything. It is sufficient if you could

enquire and find out who that someone is. Ego will develop if

one thinks that one knows everything. Instead of that, isn't it

much better to be conscious of the fact that you do not know

anything and then enquire how you could gain moksha? "

He felt happy at that and went his way. " (End of extract).

By the way, congratulations on the birth of your son. Regards.

Jan Nagraj

January 13, 2008

Hari Om,

One argument I have heard from my Gurudev is as follows;

A doctor who passes MBBS in third class is eligible to practice medicine. A

highly qualified phsysician ( A rank holder MD,DM) is also eligible to practice

medicine

Venkit

Save all your chat conversations. Find them online.

January 14, 2008

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh wrote:

" Let us not be so glib and presumptuous as to pontificate on

Sringeri Acharyas going against Shankara Bhashyas!!! "

" On pp. 199-200, there is a reference to Sw. Vidyaranya's

> Jivanmuktiviveka - Svarupasiddhiprayojana-Prakarana - explaining

> the 'variants' of Jivanmukti.

>

> The jnana-bhumikas mentioned in Yogavasishtha :

>

> " ....The fourth plane termed sattvapatti (attainment of sattva) is of

> the form of the fruit of the first threeand is characterised by the

> direct realisation of the unity of the self and Brahman...

> The Yogin who has reached the fourth plane is termed a brhamavid

> (knowere of Brahman).

>

> The fifth plane onwards are variants of jivanmukti.They stem from the

> gradations in repose effected by engagement in nirvikalpa samadhi.

> In the fifth plane [called asamsakti (detachment)], one emerges from

> nirvikalpa samadhi on one's own.This yogin is called a brahmavidvara

> (great knower of Brahman).

>

> In the sixth plane [termed padarthabhavana(absence of objects)], one

> emerges from nirvikalpa samadhi only when awakened by the persons

> nearby. Such a yogin is termed brahmavidvariyan (greeater knower of

> Brahman).

>

> The yogin who has reached the seventh plane called turiya never emerges

> from nirvikalpa samadhieither on his own or in response to the efforts

> of another. Such a yogin is called a brahmavidvarishtha (best knower of

> Brahman)...... "

Dear Sri Sunder Hattangadi,

Sri Shankara , in his commentary to shloka 21-Chapter2 of

Bhagavadgita writes :

viduShaH AtmatvAt ||

Jnani/Brahmavit/Atmavit is ATMAN alone.

What is Atmasvarupa?

Sri Shankara in his commentary to Mantra 8-3-4 of

Chandogya Upanishad writes:

aSarIratA hi AtmanaH svarUpam || Chandogya 8-3-4

Can there be grades in Atmajnana or Atmajnani/Brahmavit ?

There will be grades and differences in the names and forms or upadhis

which are being called as jnani etc. BUT IN THE JNANI THERE ARE NO

DIFFERENT GRADES OR LEVELS BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY JNANA AND NO jnani.

In the light of the above quoted Sri Shankara's commentaries it is

evedent that what has been written in Yogavasishta and quoted by you

is not in line with the Upanishads and Sri Shankara's commentaries.

I have great respect for the Pontiffs of Sringeri who were and are

Spiritual Giants.But that does not mean that one has to blindly

believe or accept whatever has been said. I have grown up in the

tradition of Vedantins who strictly follow the dictum " na hi

kiMcidapi avicArya SraddhAtavyaM yAthAtathyEna tattvaM

nirdidhArayiShuNA || " .

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

January 14, 2008

advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145

wrote:

>> In the light of the above quoted Sri Shankara's commentaries it is

> evedent that what has been written in Yogavasishta and quoted by you

> is not in line with the Upanishads and Sri Shankara's commentaries.

>

> I have great respect for the Pontiffs of Sringeri who were and are

> Spiritual Giants.But that does not mean that one has to blindly

> believe or accept whatever has been said. I have grown up in the

> tradition of Vedantins who strictly follow the dictum " na hi

> kiMcidapi avicArya SraddhAtavyaM yAthAtathyEna tattvaM

> nirdidhArayiShuNA || " .

Namaste,

The implication seems to be that there are Spiritual Giants,

Dwarfs, and Super-Giants!

Regards,

Sunder

January 14, 2008

advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145

wrote:

>

> H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

> Pranams to all.

> In the light of the above quoted Sri Shankara's commentaries it is

> evedent that what has been written in Yogavasishta and quoted by

you

> is not in line with the Upanishads and Sri Shankara's commentaries.

>

> I have great respect for the Pontiffs of Sringeri who were and are

> Spiritual Giants.But that does not mean that one has to blindly

> believe or accept whatever has been said. I have grown up in the

> tradition of Vedantins who strictly follow the dictum " na hi

> kiMcidapi avicArya SraddhAtavyaM yAthAtathyEna tattvaM

> nirdidhArayiShuNA || " .

>

> With warm and respectful regards,

> Sreenivasa Murthy.

Dear Shri Sreenivasa Murthy,

You say that you follow the dictum that one should not accept

anything without examination (avicArya). Madhusudana sarasvati has

quoted these very passages from Yoga VasishTa in his commentary on

gItA 3.18. Swami Vidyaranya has quoted this in ch.4 of

Jivanmuktiviveka. Does it mean that they have accepted these without

examination or that they are less devoted to Sri Sankara than you?

Yoga VasishTa is the teaching of the great Sage Vasishta to Lord

Rama. What are the upanishads? Are they, and the entire vedas, not

what was " seen " by the seers like VasishTa? VasishTa himself was one

of the seers of the Vedas. The mantras seen by him appear in Rgveda.

The gayatri mantra was given to us by sage Viswamitra. According to

Valmiki Ramayana,Viswamitra was satisfied only when VasishTa himself

recognized him as a brahmaRishi. That was the greatness of VasishTa.

Can his teachings themselves not be considered to be upanishads?

There are amny upanishads on which Sri Sankara has not written any

commentary. Are they to be ignored? THese are just some thoughts

which came up in my mind. As far as I am concerned, I worship all

the sages and AcAryas and consider their teachings to be sacrosanct.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

>

January 14, 2008

praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

If you could permit me, I would like to share some of my thoughts.

Sri S prabhuji :

Dear Shri Sreenivasa Murthy,

You say that you follow the dictum that one should not accept

anything without examination (avicArya).

bhaskar :

Yes, shankara himself insisted!!! that is it not?? that which is *anubhava

(sArvatrika pUrNAnubhava) viruddha* should not be accepted as pramANa in

brahma jignAsa...

Sri S prabhuji:

Madhusudana sarasvati has quoted these very passages from Yoga VasishTa in

his commentary on

gItA 3.18. Swami Vidyaranya has quoted this in ch.4 of Jivanmuktiviveka.

Does it mean that they have accepted these without

examination or that they are less devoted to Sri Sankara than you?

bhaskar :

prabhuji, kindly pardon me, this line of your argument does not impress

me...Since it is shankara siddhAnta as found in his prasthAna traya bhAshya

we are discussing here, let us refrain ourselves from making statements,

such as, who devoted to shankara less & who devoted & closely followed

shankara.....In this quest of siddhAnta nirNaya, the question who is less

/ more devoted to shankara does not arise...bhAmati & vivaraNa schools

differed one another & claim that they are the true followers of teachings

of shankara, can we conclude one is less devoted compared to another & one

is hypocrite and another is genuine?? For that matter, Sri madhusUdana

saraswati himself has taken some deviations from shankara bhAshya in his

gUdhArTha dIpika & advaita siddhi, from this can we say he is saMpradAya

virOdhi?? No, that is not the issue here...It may be kindly noted that

question is not about later advaita AchAryas, sincerity towards

mUlAchArya...Intention here is an unbiased objective evaluation of

siddhAnta as propagated by post shankara Acharya-s vis a vis as found in

shankara's prasthAna trayi bhAshya. That is it...Otherwise, if we go by

the above line of argument, we are forced to come to an ugly conclusion

that Sri madhvAchArya is more devoted & sincere to vEda, vEdAnta & vEda

vyAsa since he has written more commentary on vEda & vEdAnta after

*evaluating* the siddhAnta of advaita & v.advaita....I hope no

advaitin/v.advaitin would agree to these type of erroneous conclusions...

Sri S prabhuji :

There are amny upanishads on which Sri Sankara has not written any

commentary. Are they to be ignored?

bhaskar :

No, but at the same time we can not predict what would be the shankara's

stand on these upanishads...

Sri S prabhuji :

THese are just some thoughts which came up in my mind. As far as I am

concerned, I worship all the sages and AcAryas and consider their teachings

to be sacrosanct.

bhaskar :

Yes, we, the loukika-s, are ready to prostrate before all advaita

Acharaya-s, worship them, respect them whole heartedly & pray earnestly for

their blessings...But when it comes to advaita siddhAnta, let us follow Adi

shankara bhagavatpAda, who has written his *prasanna, gaMbhIra* bhAshya on

prasthAna traya which are fortunately avaialble to us for ready reference.

Kindly pardon me prabhuji, if I said anything wrong here.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

January 14, 2008

Humble praNAms Sri Adi mAtAji

Hare Krishna

As usual, I am finding myself in the bad books of my cyber mAtAji Sri Adi

mA :-)) It is quite unfortunate that despite repeated clarification from

this *kuputra*, my mAtAji thinking that I am putting unnecessary stress &

strains to the person who I respect & admire most!! Sri Shastriprabhuji,

if my mails giving you such an impression, I hereby offer my unconditional

apologies....Kindly let me know whether I am asking too many questions &

putting you under stress?? If it is true & if you feel like that, I wont

write to you directly anything in future...I donot want to disturb your

goodself anymore...

Now to my mAtAji's observations & clarifications :

Adi mAtAji:

Since you are such a 'voracious' reader and an ardent follower of

vedanta , i would once again humbly request you to read the 'varaha

purana ' and Tripura rahasya texts to understand how the gradations

of different stages of jnanis occur !

bhaskar :

Thanks for your advice mAtAji...Definitely I shall do that...but while

doing so, I would like to find out how best I can understand these texts

without compromising the shankara's advaita siddhAnta..Being a shankara

vEdAnta follower, I think I must do it.

Adi mAtAji :

please go through these links one more time specially the link on Tripura

Rahsaya - it has extensive literature on 'Samadhi' here are the links

bhaskar :

thanks once again...most probably this week end I shall try to do this...In

the meanwhile, if you permit me, I shall share my observation on your

purANa's quote.

Adi mAtAji :

prabhuji , may i ( this non prabhuji) share this important para from

Varaha purana ?

" The Rishi) Suka is a Mukta (emancipated person). (The Rishi)

Vamadeva is a Mukta. There are no others (who have attained

emancipation) than through these (viz., the two paths of these two

Rishis). Those brave men who follow the path of Suka in this world

become Sadyo-Muktas (viz., emancipated) immediately after (the body

wear away);

bhaskar:

Here is the conflict in my understanding....sadyO mukti is the immdiate

effect of jnAna...it is not after maraNa or wear away of the body!! sadyaH

means tat kshaNa (in that very moment)...it is not kAlAntara or dEhAtntara

or vidEha mukti.... & also kindly clarify what is shuka mArga & what is

vAmadEva mArga here??

Adi mAtAji :

While those who always follow the path of Vamadeva (i.e.,

Vedanta) in this world are subject again and again to rebirths and

attain Krama (gradual) emancipation, through Yoga, Sankhya and

Karmas associated with Sattva (Guna).

bhaskar :

I am afraid I am missing something here....otherwise, this is very strange

explanation I believe...It is implied here that those who follow vEdAnta

mArga would again & again take rebirth and attain ONLY krama mukti that

too through mixture of yOga, sAnkhya & karma!! does not shankara

vehemently argued against jnAna-karma samucchaya vAda?? does not he &

sureshwara repeatedly insisted that through shAstra vAkya sharavaNa

(vEdAnta vAkya sharavaNa) one attains the ultimate without any doubt!!!

does not shankara said krama mukti is recommended only for those who do

saguNOpAsana?? where he says vEdAnta mArga with admixture of karma & yOga

lead one to krama mukti ???

AdimAtAji :

Thus there are two paths laid down by the Lord of Devas (viz.,)

the Suka and Vamadeva paths. The Suka path is called the bird's

path; while the Vamadeva path is called the ant's path. "

bhaskar :

If i am not wrong here in my understanding, what we are following & what

has been followed by our Acharya-s are vAmadEva mArga that is vEdAnta, the

ant's path which leads us only to krama mukti....is this an appropriate

conclusion that we can derive from this?? by the way, it is onceagain not

clear here what is bird's path or shuka mArga....mAtAji would you please

clarify this.

Adi mAtAji :

to be honest with you , prabhuji , why cannot a brahmajnani be a

shotriya and vice versa ? in my mind , there is no doubt that our

Acharya was both a shotriya and a brahma jnani .

bhaskar :

nobody doubting it...but my observation/question was based on gradations &

difference between brahmavit & other types of brahma jnAni-s...

Adi mAtAji :

As far as sri

Ramana is concerened , HE IS A BRAHMAJNANI and it is well known that

he was also familiar with all the scriptures ( what difference does

it make if chicken came first or egg came first) ?

bhaskar :

he may not be a brahmavid varishTa though he is brahmavit or brahmajnAni

like yajnAvalkya...We cannot give any living example for the status of

brahmavidvarishTa, the highest status of jnAna according to VC

bhAshya...Kindly note this is not my observation, it is HH jagadguru's

observation, rather my understanding of jagaguru's observation.

Corrections & clarifications are most welcome.

Adi mAtAji :

sri ramakrishna had no formal education but after he attained brahma jnana

, he was

quoting scriptures with ease and comfort ! IMHO , there is no

conflict between the two - one can be a shotriya as well as a brahma

jnani but all shotriyas are not necessarily brahmajnanis and all

brahmajnanis are not shotriyas!

bhaskar :

again, my question has not been answered here...I am asking the difference

between shrOtrIya & kEvala brahmajnAni who is yet to achieve higher &

higher status of different samAdhi-s.

Adi mAtAji :

in Chandogya Upanishad, it s said " . It is not the knowledge of the

scriptures but the realization of the Self that brings liberation to

the spirit of man. "

bhaskar :

Yes, shankara too said that jnApakaM hi shAstraM na kArakaM...and with the

same breath he also insisted that shAstra & anubhava are the *antya

pramANa* for doing brahma jignAsa & NOT the individual's experience

(vaiyuktika anubhava) may it be the experience of mahAtma-s like kapila &

kANAda.

Adi mAtAji :

sri Ramakrishna was ASKED mny times to describe what 'samadhi' is and every

time the word was mentioned , Sri Ramakrishna would go

into a state of Samadhi - he could not describe the samadhi experience in

words !

bhaskar :

And it is well documented in his biography that he forcefully used to

comeback from that state by asking some water, jilEbi, rasagulla ( Bengali

sweets)...If we go by these definitions & understand his status of jnAna

according to the VC bhAshya of jagadguru, Sri Ramakrishna parama hamsa was

kEvala *brahmavidvara* and NOT brahmavidvarishTa....because bhAshya bhAga

of VC clearly says that :

// quote //

Brahmavidvara, who is a sthitaprajna, gets out of his samAdhi of his own

accord by the force of his own karma and joy and sorrow pertain to him.

// unquote //

I onceagain reitereate that I've not been making these observations just to

belittle some exalted personalities...I am tuccha, nishkrushta when

compared to those mahAnubhAva-s....but I cannot help but to ask these

questions....I earnestly hope prabhuji-s of this list would take it in the

right spirit & understand my confusions...

Adl mAtAji :

but , prabhuji , you have raised some interesting questions and i am sure

when shastriji and sadaji tackle all your many doubts one by

one , we all will also have an opportunity to learn and delearn! for some

odd reason, sri anandaji is very quiet and we would love to

hear his 'take ' on this subject ! His own gurhji Sri Atmananda has had

many experiences of 'Samadhi ' which brings up another

interesting point ....

bhaskar :

Yes, mAtAji, I am eagerly and anxiously awaiting replies from Sri Anada

wood prabhui, Sri sadananda prabhuji, prof. VK prabhuji & other scholars

who are persuing jnAna mArga since very long time...I hope they wont

disappoint me.

I onceagain apologise if my queries sound too mischievous & hurting the

sentiments of other prabhuji-s in this list.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

January 14, 2008

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> If you could permit me, I would like to share some of my thoughts.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> Yes, we, the loukika-s, are ready to prostrate before all advaita

> Acharaya-s, worship them, respect them whole heartedly & pray

earnestly for

> their blessings...But when it comes to advaita siddhAnta, let us

follow Adi

> shankara bhagavatpAda, who has written his *prasanna, gaMbhIra*

bhAshya on

> prasthAna traya which are fortunately avaialble to us for ready

reference.

>

> Kindly pardon me prabhuji, if I said anything wrong here.

>

> Humble praNAms onceagain

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

Dear Shri Bhaskar,

My sincere apologies. I should have followed Bhartrihari's advice in

Nitisatakam where he says that in the presence of learned men the

best ornament for an ignorant man is silence. I did not know that

there are members in this group who are greater scholars on Sri

Sankara's bhAshya than VidyAraNya , Madhusudana sarasvati and

others. Now that I know, I shall be careful.

With best wishes and praying to God to endow me with some knowledge,

S.N.Sastri

January 14, 2008

bhaskar prabhuji :

you are not in my 'bad' books ...rather, you are like one of

those 'naughty' children who is crying for 'attention' ... Yes! dear

heart , our beloved shastriji is over 80 years of age and he is a

very very active moderator too unlike other moderators who adopt

such a passive role and seem to be in a state of 'dream' and deep

sleep ! smile :-) yes ! we donot want to frustrate shastiji so much

by relentless and repeated questioning that he goes into

a 'dakshinamurthy' mode of deep silence - MAUNAM SARVA SADHAKAM!

WEll, who am i to intevene ? except i know from experience , how

this has happened in the past with Subbuji !!! IT IS ONE THING TO

ASK QUESTIONS IN A HUMBLE AND 'LEARNING' MODE , IT IS ANOTHER THING

TO BE ALWAYS SOUND CHALLENGING AND QUESTIONING AUTHORITY FIGURES ! (

at least that is the way i feel about your way of asking questions -

i may be wrong) pl remember the following verse from Srimad Bhagvad

gita

Bhagavad Gita 4.34

tad viddhi pranipatena

pariprasnena sevaya

upadeksyanti te jnanam

jnaninas tattva-darshinah

yes ! dear prabhuji ! we are very fortunate that our beloved ramji

has created this holy satsangha for our bebefit where we can all

exchange ideas in a spirit of mutual respect but by the same token

we have to exercise this 'freedom' in a responsible manner - ask

questions , raise doubts but do not shoot one arrow after another

without a break! let the first arrow reach its destination first

before the second arrow lis released !

now as far all your other questions from Varaha purana , i just

don't have the time right now - my 87 year old mother is waiting in

the hotel room for her evening dinner ! i have 3 kids to look after -

one my mom, next my infant granddaughter ( my daughter is out

partying) and me , a half grown kid! so , you see my hands are full!

btw , how cn you even bracket Yagnvalkya with sri Ramana ? rAMANA

BHAGVAN HAD NO 'VASANAS' WHERAS yANAVALKYA HAD HIS 'KINGDOM' TO GIVE

UP ! RAMANA'S KINGDOM WAS WITHIN HIM! pl , prabhuji!

Nomenclature does not matter !Adi shankara bhagvadapada and sri

Ramana are both jivanmuktas - and i say so - that is the end of the

argument !

sreenivasa ji - this note is for you ! pl PROVIDE A TRANSLATION (

ENGLISH) HOWEVER IMPERFECT IT MAY BE - OTHERWISE DO NOT QUOTE

SANSKRIT TEXTS LIKE THE FOLLOWING

yO hi suShuptAvasthamiva nirviSESham advaitam

aluptacidrUpajyOtiHsvaBAvam AtmAnaM paSyati tasaiva akAmayamAnasya

karmABAvE gamanakAraNABAvAt prANAvAgAdayaH nOtkrAmanti |

kiM tu vidvAn sa ihaiva brahma yadyapi dEhavAniva lakShyatE sa

brahmaiva san brahmyApEti ||

The above commentary is self-explanatory which does not need

any explanation from any body at all.)

this is all greek and latin to me - it is not self explanatory !

sreenivasa , pl explain - there are many non sanskrit knowing

members in this audience!

bhaskar , the Divine mother loves all her chikldren even

the 'doubting' Thomases like Prabhuji!

!

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> Humble praNAms Sri Adi mAtAji

> Hare Krishna

>

> As usual, I am finding myself in the bad books of my cyber mAtAji

Sri Adi

> mA :-)) It is quite unfortunate that despite repeated

clarification from

> this *kuputra*, my mAtAji thinking that I am putting unnecessary

stress &

> strains to the person who I respect & admire most!!

January 14, 2008

we all can emulate the example of my most favorite on line Resource

shri shri sunder prabhuji!

" Vidya Vinayena Shobhate "

Sunderji , you have not only opened our eyes but 'closed' our egos

also ! smile!

>

> Namaste,

>

> Let us not be so glib and presumptuous as to pontificate on

> Sringeri Acharyas going against Shankara Bhashyas!!!

>

> If one wishes to understand the first-hand 'svanubhava', the

> dialogues in the book " Yoga, Enlightenment and Perfection " between

> Mahasvamigal Abhinava Vidyatirtha and a disciple, will open one's

eyes.

>

> On pp. 199-200, there is a reference to Sw. Vidyaranya's

> Jivanmuktiviveka - Svarupasiddhiprayojana-Prakarana - explaining

> the 'variants' of Jivanmukti.

>

January 14, 2008

Pranams advaitins:

First, we have lot to learn from stalwarts of this list such as Sri

Sastriji whose expose their scholarship with humility. I fully agree

with his message full of wisdom. I do want to add some additional

points in support of his contention in several of his previous

messages.

Our primary problem is our failure to recognize the fact that our

understanding of Shankara Siddhanta and his various works need not

necessarily be PERFECT. By just making few quotations from Shankara

Siddhanta or from his works will not make our contention and

understanding to be more precise than well known scholars of Advaita

Vedanta. Reading volumes of books again and again also will not imply

our full understanding of Shankara Siddhanta. This is one of the

many reasons why we need to rely on the interpretations of

VidyAraNya, Madhusudana Saraswati and other scholars since they are

greater scholars than us.

In the ongoing discussions, one of the main dispute was with respect

to the gradation of jnanis. It should be pointed out that the

gradation does not occur at the paramarthika level where jnanam and

jnani get superimposed. In other words, with jnanam there is no

gradation and as ajnanis (vyavaharika level) we grade the jnanis by

using our imprecise under cultivated intellect. This may explain

why the jnanis of the past and present get graded differently and

our grading reflects how we perceive them.

The unending debates only confirm that we still do not find a way to

shelter our ignorance by silence. I am sorry to note that some of

the debaters seem to apply Vitanda Vada to ridicule the works of

past and present Advaita scholars including VidyAraNya, Madhusudana

Sarasvati and others. None of those scholars have any known

disagreements with Bhagavadpada's Siddhanta or his works. Some of

the debaters don't seem to recognize their incomplete understanding

(at least the possibility of misunderstanding) of the works of those

great scholars. Here are few quotations that I gathered from the

Internet that will be quite handy while conducting our discussions:

" There are no facts, only interpretations! "

" The difference between a smart person and a wise person is that

a smart person knows what to say and a wise person knows whether or

not to say it. "

" A smart person talks from experience, a smarter person from

experience does not talk. "

" When you talk you can only say something that you already know,

but when you listen, you learn what someone else knows. "

" A wise man can see more from the bottom of a well than a fool can

see from a mountain top. "

" There is this difference between happiness and wisdom, that he that

thinks himself the happiest man really is so; but he that thinks

himself the wisest is generally the greatest fool. "

" It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be

reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err. "

" Before God we are equally wise -- and equally foolish. "

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

Note: Please note that this post is from an ajnani and consequently

will be subject to errors. Vedantic discussions use three forms of

dispute resolutions known by the names of 'Jalpa'. 'Vitanda'

and 'Vada'. A disputation which is held with a view to establishing

one's own viewpoint and for the demolition of the adversary's

standpoint irrespective of which is right and which is wrong, is

called 'Jalpa'. That which is resorted to only for the demolition of

the opponent's standpoint is known as 'Vitanda' while reasoning with

the pure motive of arriving at the right conclusion is known by the

name of 'Vada'. We should strive hard to engage in Vada and avoid

Jalpa and Vitanda.

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Bhaskar,

> My sincere apologies. I should have followed Bhartrihari's advice

in

> Nitisatakam where he says that in the presence of learned men the

> best ornament for an ignorant man is silence. I did not know that

> there are members in this group who are greater scholars on Sri

> Sankara's bhAshya than VidyAraNya , Madhusudana sarasvati and

> others. Now that I know, I shall be careful.

> With best wishes and praying to God to endow me with some knowledge,

> S.N.Sastri

>

bhagavan sri ramana maharshi (and a related announcement

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups