bhagavan sri ramana maharshi (and a related announcement

[Guest guest]

Regarding the current discussion about 'grades' of j~nAnI:

 

 

 

I am certainly fully in agreement with Sri Ramji, that we should be careful

not to indulge in disputation for its own sake or for the wrong reason.

However, the statement " The unending debates only confirm that we still do

not find a way to shelter our ignorance by silence " implies that we should

remain silent even when we do not understand and, to my mind, this would be

wrong. The group does exist in order that those with legitimate concerns

should be able to keep asking until understanding arises (provided of course

that there exists knowledge within the group to provide answers!)

 

 

 

I am bound to share Bhaskar-ji's concerns regarding the gradations of

j~nAnI-s. My understanding was that self-knowledge equates to a j~nAnI - no

gradations. The only qualification is that the 'fruits of knowledge' -

j~nAna phalam - will also arise if the sAdhaka was fully mentally prepared

beforehand. (If not, this will eventually be gained as a result of

nididhyAsana.) The j~nAni is then called a j~nAna niShTha. This

understanding arose as a result of listening to Swami Paramarthananda's

exposition on the mANDUkya kArikA.

 

 

 

I have not come across the yoga vAsiShTha gradations, nor the other source

that was mentioned. My own feelings on the matter are that, where a

different viewpoint is expressed by a much later source, I would defer to

what has been said by gauDapAda and shaMkara. (After all, this group's

declared standpoint is advaita as systematized by shaMkara. Obviously, if

nothing at all has been said on the matter by shaMkara, the situation is

less clear. It would however seem that the commentary on the kArikA would

have been an obvious place to say something - if there had been anything to

add to what he had already said...

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Ram Chandran

14 January 2008 15:05

advaitin

Re: bhagavan sri ramana maharshi (and a related

announcement

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

..

 

 

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

8967/stime=1200323104/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848582/nc3=4990214>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji:

 

First let me thank you for correcting my observation ( " the unending

debates .... " ). Your reply confirms that everystatement that we read

in the literature is always subject to 'interpretation.' I wanted to

state that Vitanda Vada will only expose one's ignorance and will not

help one to get the wisdom. What Shankara said is also subject to

interpretation and that explains why we need the help of scholars

such as Madhusudana Saraswati. I have no problems with the expression

of " concerns " by Bhaskerji but the tone and style give the impression

as though they are " assertions! "

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

 

> However, the statement " The unending debates only confirm that we

still do

> not find a way to shelter our ignorance by silence " implies

[Guest guest]

Dear Ram-ji,

 

 

 

I agree entirely (and I have added your 'three types of disputation'

definitions to my Sanskrit glossary, which I am now in the process of

putting up at the website - this is an extremely useful classification).

 

 

 

Each person's style of writing is however different and it is very easy

simply to respond in the moment without careful analysis of the reply to

ensure that what is said cannot be misunderstood or taken the wrong way. I

think we have to make allowances for this. (I also think that Sri Sastri is

well able to cope with any verbal 'attacks' in any case, as his recent

responses show. His reply to Bhaskarji was heavily laden with irony!)

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Ram Chandran

14 January 2008 17:45

advaitin

Re: bhagavan sri ramana maharshi (and a related

announcement

 

 

 

Namaste Dennisji:

 

First let me thank you for correcting my observation ( " the unending

debates .... " ). Your reply confirms that everystatement that we read

in the literature is always subject to 'interpretation.' I wanted to

state that Vitanda Vada will only expose one's ignorance and will not

help one to get the wisdom. What Shankara said is also subject to

interpretation and that explains why we need the help of scholars

such as Madhusudana Saraswati. I have no problems with the expression

of " concerns " by Bhaskerji but the tone and style give the impression

as though they are " assertions! "

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Regarding the current discussion about 'grades' of j~nAnI:

>

>

> >

> I have not come across the yoga vAsiShTha gradations, nor the other

source

> that was mentioned. My own feelings on the matter are that, where a

> different viewpoint is expressed by a much later source, I would

defer to

> what has been said by gauDapAda and shaMkara.

 

Namaste,

 

Mundaka Upanishad 3:1:4 -

 

 

.....AtmakrIDa AtmaratiH kriyAvAneSha brahmavidAM variShThaH ||

 

" He disports in the Self, delights in the Self, and is engrossed in

spiritual practice. This one is the chief among the knowers of

Brahman. "

 

The Shankara bhashya is much longer.

 

The gradations refer NOT to the jnana/jnani, but the baggage of

upadhis still to be exhausted by tapas, etc.

 

To insist that the Sringeri tradition has not understood

Shankara Bhashya for 1200 years would make even Saradambal weep tears

of grief.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Regarding the current discussion about 'grades' of j~nAnI:

 

Namaste,

 

All these interpretations of Sankara are just that. I doubt anyone

really knows or has recorded all his concepts. I suspect his true

teachings are hardly touched on for they interfere with obvious

religious indoctination and prejudices of many who write about him...Hu

[Guest guest]

Sunder-ji makes the point clearly. I have only caught part of this

thread. Perhaps someone has already pointed out that Sri Ramana spoke

on this exact issue. Self-Realization is permanent. The Jnana is the

same whether the mukta is in fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh stage.

The differences in the stages are due to differences in the

experiences of the muktas which are due to previous karmas in fruition.

 

Jnana is not an experience. It is simply Self-Knowledge. Experiences

pertain to mind/body etc. The differences of muktas are not in Jnana

but in the experiences at different stages (samadhis) and the honors

received (in the physical and subtle worlds).

 

All of this has been explained by our sages for the benefit of the

onlookers who perceive differences. The limitations of language have

to kept in mind. It only indicates and points.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

> Namaste,

>

> Mundaka Upanishad 3:1:4 -

>

>

> ....AtmakrIDa AtmaratiH kriyAvAneSha brahmavidAM variShThaH ||

>

> " He disports in the Self, delights in the Self, and is engrossed in

> spiritual practice. This one is the chief among the knowers of

> Brahman. "

>

> The Shankara bhashya is much longer.

>

> The gradations refer NOT to the jnana/jnani, but the baggage of

> upadhis still to be exhausted by tapas, etc.

>

> To insist that the Sringeri tradition has not understood

> Shankara Bhashya for 1200 years would make even Saradambal weep tears

> of grief.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Sunder-ji,

 

 

 

Thanks for the reference - it is certainly more reasonable that the

gradations apply to 'clearing the baggage'.

 

 

 

On the subject of authority, one must obviously defer to a sampradAya

teacher in matters of interpretation. My own experience of the teaching of

modern shaMkarAchArya-s is extremely limited, though - only second hand

whilst with SES in England - from Sri Shantanand Saraswati of Jyotirmath in

the nineteen sixties to nineties. However, assuming that what was passed on

was actually what he taught, much of this appeared at variance with advaita,

referring variously to yoga, sAMkhya and sphoTa, for example. It does seem

that particular teachers may be influenced by ideas from a variety of

sources and that it may not always be the case that what is taught is

strictly according to Shankara. Apologies if this sounds heretical but, as I

say, that is my limited experience.

 

 

 

Who is Saradambal, incidentally??

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Sunder Hattangadi

14 January 2008 18:38

advaitin

Re: bhagavan sri ramana maharshi (and a related

announcement

 

 

 

The gradations refer NOT to the jnana/jnani, but the baggage of

upadhis still to be exhausted by tapas, etc.

 

To insist that the Sringeri tradition has not understood

Shankara Bhashya for 1200 years would make even Saradambal weep tears

of grief.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " jannagraj " <jannagraj wrote:

 

> 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? "

>

>[...]

>

> Bhagavan Ramana: " 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? "

> [The enquirer felt happy at that and went his way. (End of extract).

>

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

> Jan Nagraj

>

 

hariH OM! sri jan,

 

thank you.

 

i dont remember this passage in her book. nevertheless, it was

inspiration to read. she was a beautiful soul, tirelessly offering

her time and energy to the dwellers on arunachala, punctually

delivering meals to bhagavan and his attendants over many years. her

letters told many heartwarming stories, and really gave the sense of

what it might have been like being there.

 

re ramana's reply quoted above. it shows the monumental and highly

underrated importance to boil away the mind's trivial dross and get

to the core of what the Self really is. not a matter of a vast

aglomeration of metaphysical knowledge, which is only and *always

ever* only rooted in vyavahara. such has the tendency (i'm referring

only to advanced pakvas who are READY to break through the barrier of

vicious circular intellection as well as the competitive lure into

the morass of kutarka [confusion-begetting debating]!) to inflate the

lower ego, which is enemy number one of the sadhaka.

 

there's an old saying, " if you can't explain it to your grandmother,

you really don't understand it yourself. "

 

namaste,

frank

[Guest guest]

Dear Frank-ji:

 

Its good to read your words as they point to the ultimate simplicity

and get to the heart of the matter.

 

Words and language are certainly important. When imbued with Grace of

Bhagavan these become vehicles of transmission and reveal the primal

wholeness and unity of the underlying reality that is indeed our Self.

 

The ancient sages have said, " Know That by which all is known " . What

can be more beautiful than these clear words?

 

Congratulations on the birth of your son, Frank-ji. Wishing for you

and your family much happiness and joy.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

advaitin , " frank maiello " <egodust wrote:

> >

>

> hariH OM! sri jan,

>

> thank you.

>

> i dont remember this passage in her book. nevertheless, it was

> inspiration to read. she was a beautiful soul, tirelessly offering

> her time and energy to the dwellers on arunachala, punctually

> delivering meals to bhagavan and his attendants over many years. her

> letters told many heartwarming stories, and really gave the sense of

> what it might have been like being there.

>

> re ramana's reply quoted above. it shows the monumental and highly

> underrated importance to boil away the mind's trivial dross and get

> to the core of what the Self really is. not a matter of a vast

> aglomeration of metaphysical knowledge, which is only and *always

> ever* only rooted in vyavahara. such has the tendency (i'm referring

> only to advanced pakvas who are READY to break through the barrier of

> vicious circular intellection as well as the competitive lure into

> the morass of kutarka [confusion-begetting debating]!) to inflate the

> lower ego, which is enemy number one of the sadhaka.

>

> there's an old saying, " if you can't explain it to your grandmother,

> you really don't understand it yourself. "

>

> namaste,

> frank

>

[Guest guest]

--- frank maiello <egodust wrote:

>

> there's an old saying, " if you can't explain it to

> your grandmother,

> you really don't understand it yourself. "

 

Frank - PraNAms

 

Could not resist from laughing aloud after reading the

last lines.

 

You are right. The problem was even worse since my

grand mother was a scholar on her own right, and it

was in fact most difficult to make her understand my

stupidity, and what to talk about convincing her! Oh!

What a difficult time I had!

 

About the on going discussion on the topic with the

same title, I must say:

 

It is difficult to get rid of my stupidity unless I am

convinced! - may be that comes from my rational

thinking. Only thing is I realize my problem, and give

a benefit of doubt to the aachaaryas that they must be

right unless they are proved wrong.

 

By the by, AshTaavakra Gita has been attributed to

around 11th century and Shankara, as for I know, never

referenced it. Of course Ramanuja and Madhva will not

touch it, since it is more in tune with advaita.

 

Also about Bhagavatam - Uddhava gita, the last

chapters containing Krishna's teachings to Uddhava and

it is pure advaita. Shankara did not reference

Bhagavatam - also apparently for the same reason -

historically it is attributed to post Shankara.

 

Implication is contents in these texts might as well

contradict some of the advaitic doctrines - or should

be interpreted properly in tune with advaita, if that

can be done.

 

Just my 2C since I have not followed the discussion on

the topic.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

>

>

>

> On the subject of authority, one must obviously defer to a

sampradAya

> teacher in matters of interpretation. My own experience of the

teaching of

> modern shaMkarAchArya-s is extremely limited, though - only second

hand

> whilst with SES in England - from Sri Shantanand Saraswati of

Jyotirmath in

> the nineteen sixties to nineties. However, assuming that what was

passed on

> was actually what he taught, much of this appeared at variance with

advaita,

> referring variously to yoga, sAMkhya and sphoTa, for example. It

does seem

> that particular teachers may be influenced by ideas from a variety

of

> sources and that it may not always be the case that what is taught

is

> strictly according to Shankara. Apologies if this sounds heretical

but, as I

> say, that is my limited experience.

>

>

>

> Who is Saradambal, incidentally??

 

Namaste,

 

Sharadambal is the presiding Deity of the Sringeri Math.

More on it at: http://www.sringeri.net/temples/sharadamba.php

 

The Guru-Shishya [Teacher-Disciple] relationship is the

field of Spiritual practice is unique by any standard. What is

conveyed in the written documents is perhaps less than a millionth

part of the total. It is impossible to describe or eulogise it

adequately. It is said that the philosopher's stone can only change a

base metal into gold but not into another philosopher's stone. The

Guru has the power to change the disciple into a Guru. Of course one

can surmise how rare such occurrences are.

 

Even 'advaita-buddhi' has to take a back seat in the

presence of a Guru.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

praNAm,

 

Sunderji wrote:

> Even 'advaita-buddhi' has to take a back

> seat in the

> presence of a Guru.

 

Very beautifully said indeed! Thanks for such

wonderful words, Sunderji, that reminds me of words

from Guru Gita:

 

advaitaM bhAvayennityaM sarvAvasthAsu sarvadA

kadAcidapi no kuryadadvaitaM gurusannidhau (133)

 

At all times and under all conditions feel the

non-duality of the Self as " Brahman alone exists, I am

Brahman " . But never in the presence of the Guru,

should you have this feeling. (translation: Sw.

Narayanananda, Shivanandashram, Rishikesh).

 

The advaita paraMparA of learning by shravaNa cannot

be compared with book-learning! I'm quite sure that

whatever Acharya Bhagavatpada said could not all have

been printed!

 

gurorarpaNamastu,

--praveen

 

--prav

/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! --Br.Up.

4.5.15 */

 

 

______________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji,

 

I am honestly surprised that you haven't heard of the Devi Sharada

 

Anyway, you can find an excellent description at:

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~vs28/S.Vidyaraman/Sringeri/sarada.html

 

On 15/01/2008, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

>

> On the subject of authority, one must obviously defer to a sampradAya

> teacher in matters of interpretation. My own experience of the teaching of

> modern shaMkarAchArya-s is extremely limited, though - only second hand

> whilst with SES in England - from Sri Shantanand Saraswati of Jyotirmath in

> the nineteen sixties to nineties. However, assuming that what was passed on

> was actually what he taught, much of this appeared at variance with advaita,

> referring variously to yoga, sAMkhya and sphoTa, for example. It does seem

> that particular teachers may be influenced by ideas from a variety of

> sources and that it may not always be the case that what is taught is

> strictly according to Shankara. Apologies if this sounds heretical but, as I

> say, that is my limited experience.

>

 

There is nothing heretical about the above, but there is perhaps a

misunderstanding of the way sampradaya-s work. Neither Gaudapada nor

Sankara ever claimed to belong to some distinct school unrelated to

their contemporaries in India. All the darshana-s and tantra-s are

interrelated and were studied/practised as such in the old days, i.e.

the sampradaya-s interacted deeply with each other and yet maintained

some level of distinctiveness. The study of the all the vedanga-s and

the practice of ashtanga yoga and various modes of mantra-based

upasana have always been an integral part of the advaita tradition.

 

It is a peculiarly modern notion that there is some pristine pure

teaching that Sankara taught and to which we must revert by removing

all the later dross. And even such a notion is sustainable only on the

basis of further speculation on what Sankara actually

said/wrote/practised.

 

Frankly, Dennis-ji, how would you know what is " strictly according to

Sankara " if it were not for the sampradaya?

 

" ShaD-darSana-sthApanAcArya " is a title carried to this day by the

Sringeri acharya-s.

 

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishnamurthy-ji:

 

Wonderfully stated indeed. I want to express my gratitude to all the

great scholars and sages who speak so eloquently and pass their

knowledge on from generation to generation. Certainly, this list is a

remarkable example of that.

 

Advaitic scriptures are hard to understand without Self-Realization.

Self-Realization is hard to attain due to the difficulty of the

individual soul recognizing that it is the same as the Supreme Soul.

 

The Grace of Bhagavan in the form of Guru overcomes this catch 22.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Ramesh Krishnamurthy " <rkmurthy

wrote:

> There is nothing heretical about the above, but there is perhaps a

> misunderstanding of the way sampradaya-s work. Neither Gaudapada nor

> Sankara ever claimed to belong to some distinct school unrelated to

> their contemporaries in India. All the darshana-s and tantra-s are

> interrelated and were studied/practised as such in the old days, i.e.

> the sampradaya-s interacted deeply with each other and yet maintained

> some level of distinctiveness. The study of the all the vedanga-s and

> the practice of ashtanga yoga and various modes of mantra-based

> upasana have always been an integral part of the advaita tradition.

>

> It is a peculiarly modern notion that there is some pristine pure

> teaching that Sankara taught and to which we must revert by removing

> all the later dross. And even such a notion is sustainable only on the

> basis of further speculation on what Sankara actually

> said/wrote/practised.

>

> Frankly, Dennis-ji, how would you know what is " strictly according to

> Sankara " if it were not for the sampradaya?

>

> " ShaD-darSana-sthApanAcArya " is a title carried to this day by the

> Sringeri acharya-s.

>

> Ramesh

>

[Guest guest]

dear harsha-ji,

 

thank you!

 

from my perspective, you are indeed the glue that helps unite and

sanctify this forum.

 

it cannot be understated how important the heart is as well as the

mind in any path to enlightenment.

 

peace in ONE,

frank

 

__________________________

 

someday we'll all discover

how much we loved each other

all along..

__________________________

 

 

advaitin , " harshaimtm " wrote:

>

> Dear Frank-ji:

>

> Its good to read your words as they point to the ultimate simplicity

> and get to the heart of the matter.

>

> Words and language are certainly important. When imbued with Grace

of

> Bhagavan these become vehicles of transmission and reveal the primal

> wholeness and unity of the underlying reality that is indeed our

Self.

>

> The ancient sages have said, " Know That by which all is known " . What

> can be more beautiful than these clear words?

>

> Congratulations on the birth of your son, Frank-ji. Wishing for you

> and your family much happiness and joy.

>

> Namaste and love to all

> Harsha

>

> advaitin , " frank maiello " <egodust@> wrote:

> > >

> >

> > hariH OM! sri jan,

> >

> > thank you.

> >

> > i dont remember this passage in her book. nevertheless, it was

> > inspiration to read. she was a beautiful soul, tirelessly

offering

> > her time and energy to the dwellers on arunachala, punctually

> > delivering meals to bhagavan and his attendants over many years.

her

> > letters told many heartwarming stories, and really gave the sense

of

> > what it might have been like being there.

> >

> > re ramana's reply quoted above. it shows the monumental and

highly

> > underrated importance to boil away the mind's trivial dross and

get

> > to the core of what the Self really is. not a matter of a vast

> > aglomeration of metaphysical knowledge, which is only and *always

> > ever* only rooted in vyavahara. such has the tendency (i'm

referring

> > only to advanced pakvas who are READY to break through the

barrier of

> > vicious circular intellection as well as the competitive lure

into

> > the morass of kutarka [confusion-begetting debating]!) to inflate

the

> > lower ego, which is enemy number one of the sadhaka.

> >

> > there's an old saying, " if you can't explain it to your

grandmother,

> > you really don't understand it yourself. "

> >

> > namaste,

> > frank

> >

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

> --- frank maiello <egodust wrote:

> >

> > there's an old saying, " if you can't explain it to

> > your grandmother,

> > you really don't understand it yourself. "

>

> Frank - PraNAms

>

> Could not resist from laughing aloud after reading the

> last lines.

>

> You are right. The problem was even worse since my

> grand mother was a scholar on her own right, and it

> was in fact most difficult to make her understand my

> stupidity, and what to talk about convincing her! Oh!

> What a difficult time I had!

>

 

hariH OM! sada-ji,

 

i share your mirth. it's interesting how such a statement--that

indeed possesses a tongue-in-cheek humorous connotation--can imply

two different things, depending on whether one is from or culturally

influenced by the East or West, with the subtle humour in tact from

both perspectives to boot! :-)

 

namaste,

frank

[Guest guest]

may i also add the following passage from an on line resouce on this

very fascinating subject of different types of Jnanis ...

 

" The word bhumika means a contemplative grade in reality. According

to the Yoga Vasishta the first bhumika is described as different

from that of a person who has not desired liberation at all. The

former is not included among the list of people who have attained

any contemplation worthy of being included in the list. His state

has been compared to that of a tortoise who, having burrowed a hole

for itself in a sand dune within the reach of the advancing and

receding waves, is ever caught in alternative states and does not

escape the disturbance. The man of good aspirations and intentions

by his gentle contemplative ways qualifies himself for the first

bhumika. The seven bhumikas are as follows:

 

 

Arya, a man of pure ways. (literally " noble " ).

 

Vicara,( " questioning " ) one who is interested in learning from noble

men all about wisdom. Such a type also avoids getting involved in

egotistic and passionate events,.

 

Asamsanga, (solitary) a man who stays, in the company of yogis and

recluses, who himself cultivates meditative detachment thus leads a

contemplative life continuing his researches into the nature of the

Absolute.

 

Svapna, ( " dreaming " ) is different from the waking state, the world

is now treated on a par with the dream world attained by the person

in this state. This bhumika is normally attained by men who are

reborn after the first three relativistic bhumikas have been crossed

in a previous life, after an intermediate period of life in a world

of heavenly values where usual enjoyments are also found.(1253)

 

Sushuptapadam ( " sleep-based " ) In this state the man becomes

identified with true and pure existence. The visible world does not

affect him, nor does any sense of duality. Even if he is active, he

resembles a somnambulist.

 

Turiya (the " fourth " ). In this state opposites such as having form

and not having form (rupa-arupa) are cancelled out and mental

activities cease, and the person remains like a lamp in a picture,

He resembles two pots, one above water and the other below the

water.

 

Videhamukta-avastha (state of incorporeal freedom). This is the

ultimate state of all phenomenal becoming. It is not attained by

thought nor word. Various names have been given to this state, such

as Siva, Brahma, Vishnu, Time, Existent Object, Nothingness, etc. "

 

http://www.advaitavedanta.co.uk/content/view/71/0

 

shastriji and little me have already outlined the different

gradations of jnanis from Varaha upanishad in our recent posts !

 

well, folks ! Who is Sharadambaal ? what loaded question, dennisji ?

 

ps - today , there is very tight security at the Crown plaza hotel -

prime minister Manmohan Singh and other mimisters and foreign

dinatories are here for a conference ! my granddaughter and i are

getting VIP treatment!

 

Frankji , my grandaughter is a jnani - she can teach her grandma the

n one word the entire gist of vedanta - Tat tat tat - that is new

word !

 

 

ps - i am in total awe of sunderji - he is just too much ! how he

comes up with all these amazing resource materials on every subject

under the Sun at the right time - is beyond me! May his tribe

increse!

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramesh-ji,

 

 

 

Thank you for clarifying the functioning of sampradAya teaching. As you say,

there will always be interaction between the various thoughts of the day

(as, indeed, we are doing now, albeit on a less elevated plane!)

 

 

 

You ask: " Frankly, Dennis-ji, how would you know what is " strictly according

to Shankara " if it were not for the sampradAya? " and of course this is a

fair point. However, we do have the bhAShya-s on the gItA, upaniShad-s and

brahma sUtra. It is certainly true that we often need help in order to

understand these but our own reason is sometimes able to conclude

categorically that another's statement is not in accordance with these.

 

 

 

There is also a modern notion that people are more sophisticated/intelligent

now than they were or that reality is somehow different from what it used to

be. The fact is that reality is changeless and we are just as ignorant,

selfish, pompous etc. as we have always been. The truth is always the same

and the teaching does not need to adapt or modify in any essential detail.

 

 

 

(Thanks for the link, incidentally - I have added it to my website.)

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Ramesh Krishnamurthy

15 January 2008 16:01

advaitin

Re: Re: bhagavan sri ramana maharshi (and a related

announcement

 

 

 

Namaste Dennis-ji,

 

I am honestly surprised that you haven't heard of the Devi Sharada

 

Anyway, you can find an excellent description at:

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~vs28/S.Vidyaraman/Sringeri/sarada.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Each person's style of writing is however different and it is very easy

simply to respond in the moment without careful analysis of the reply to

ensure that what is said cannot be misunderstood or taken the wrong way.

 

> Yes, this is what really I regret to note...Despite my repeated

clarification that I am not so good at deplomatic or politically polished

English writing, people would often think that I am challenging their

understanding & questioning the credibility of later traditional AchArya-s

etc....People always fond of throwing advices & ready to label anything &

everything as vittanda that which goes against their fundamental belief &

finally with all sorts of sarcastic remarks on promt & unbiased objective

observation.. ...I am at great pain to say that objective outlook is

miserably lacking in these discussions especially when it comes to

analysation of traditional interpretations & people started to ask all

sarcastic questions like are you greater than our traditional Acharya-s??

....I think uncalled accusations, names calling & personal attacks like

this would not yeild us any fruitful discussion... ...people who try to

find fault in these discussions are more attached to *who said* than what

is said!!!

 

> It may kindly be noted that these remarks are not directed to any

individual here... it is my general observation based on the recent replies

I got from the learned members of this list.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

I have no problems with the expression

of " concerns " by Bhaskerji but the tone and style give the impression

as though they are " assertions! "

 

 

 

 

 

Humble praNAms Sri Ramachandra prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

I offer my apologies if my *tone* & style are not impressed you...I shall

try to mend my ways in future...But now, can I expect some *constructive

reply* from your goodself prabhuji...I am sure that would enhance my

knowledge in advaita....

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Bhasker Prabhuji:

 

The most constructive is - SILENCE!!

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> But now, can I expect some *constructive

> reply* from your goodself prabhuji...I am sure that would enhance my

> knowledge in advaita....

[Guest guest]

Dear Frank-ji:

 

Thank you for your generous comments. Certainly, I hesitate to

contradict those who are wiser and brother devotees of Bhagavan.

 

However, the honor of bringing the forum together and keeping it going

in such a successful fashion belongs to all the elders in the group

such as yourself, Prof. Krishnamurthy-ji Sada-ji, Sunder-ji,

Sastri-ji, Ram-ji, Greg-ji, Ananad-ji, Dennis-ji, Nair-ji and many

other distinguished members who have contributed their understanding

and knowledge (Subbu-ji, Ramesh-ji, Shyam-ji, Michael-ji, Mani-ji,

Adi-ji....) really too numerous to mention without filling pages.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

 

advaitin , " frank maiello " <egodust wrote:

>

> dear harsha-ji,

>

> thank you!

>

> from my perspective, you are indeed the glue that helps unite and

> sanctify this forum.

>

> it cannot be understated how important the heart is as well as the

> mind in any path to enlightenment.

>

> peace in ONE,

> frank

>

> __________________________

>

> someday we'll all discover

> how much we loved each other

> all along..

>

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Bhasker Prabhuji:

 

The most constructive is - SILENCE!!

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

 

 

praNAms

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

If 'silence' is the most constructive reply to all the queries in this

list, then it would be better for us to STOP all the discussions & stick to

*silence* by sitting in a cave in search of answers :-)) However,

prabhuji, for uttamaadhikAri-s like your goodself, 'silence' may throw

descriptive answers, but for a mandAdhikAri like me, it needs a lot of

beatings from the *uttamAdhikAri-s* who have already understood the truth

through *SILENCE*...So, kindly bear with the ignorance of this mandAdhikAri

& do *voice* your teachings...

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar