What did Sankara really teach

[Guest guest]

Namaste Srinivasji,

Your position seems to be that of the Nyaya

school which differs from the Advaitin on this point. Following the

reasoning offered by VP I am persuaded that non-apprehension of existence

is a distinct means of knowledge. You do not agree. I understand your

objections though I find them to be based on a fallacy. I propose we

leave the discussion lest it turn into a repetitious wrangle.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

PraNAms to Michael and Sreenivas.

 

Originally I agreed with Sreenivas, based on simple

logic. I am trying to understand Vedanta Paribhaasha

of Dharmaraja adhvarindra. the text is reather terse,

Logic is rather difficult to follow, and sanskrit

version seems to be easier to read than the english

translation. Foot notes seems to be better. He does

provides a very restricted definition that does not

contain anumaana part in anupalabdhi, as anumaana is

different pramaaNa and anupaladhi to be different from

anumaana the definition becomes necessarily

restrictive, as Michael is presenting. It may not

have anything to do with nyaaya vaiseshikas views

(that is comment of the comentator)- it is more to do

to insure that anupalabdhi is an independent 6th

pramaaNa without dependence on others for its

validity. In that sense Michael is correct. VP

discusses some puurapakshaas to justify the restricted

definition.

 

 

 

I am not sure I agree with VP's restricted definition

of anupalabdhi, either; but I am sure he has a reason

to do so. Also I am not sure VP represents advaitic

view - although Shree Advarindra formulated on a

technical basis. I would rather state it as VP's view

than advaitic view across the board since VP is more

recent, at least historically. I am emphasizing this

only for the fact that disagreement with VP does not

mean disagreement with Advaitic position or

perspective, Michael seems to present.

 

This may not have anything to do with Shankara

opinion about anupalabdhi. We are stuck with the title

- What did Shankara really teach? -although the

contents of the discussion are not much to do with the

title. I am not sure what happended to the original

poster Sriram who started this topic.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

> Namaste Srinivasji,

> Your position seems to

> be that of the Nyaya

> school which differs from the Advaitin on this

> point.

[Guest guest]

We are stuck with the title

- What did Shankara really teach? -although the

contents of the discussion are not much to do with the

title. I am not sure what happended to the original

poster Sriram who started this topic.

 

I had to smile at this. Easy to get off topic, away

from the " original " .

 

But I've wondered, reading through this thread, " What

did Shankara really teach " , if this isn't a matter of

the level of the student? At one point a teaching may

mean one thing and as a person moves on or progresses,

the same teaching may gather new meaning? So I'm

inclined to think that whatever one gleans from the

teachings is correct, even though the meaning may

change over time

 

In grade school I was taught that an atom has a

nucleus with protons and neutrons, with electrons

orbiting it. Now I know that's not " true " . Wonder if

it's not the same with Shankara as well as all the

other teachers? A teaching at one level of

understanding may be actually reversed at another?...

 

 

______________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Guest guest]

List Moderators' Note: Please do not include the entire message of previous

poster(s) while sending your reply. Members are requested to keep the minimum

text (as it is done here) while replying.

 

 

Dear Sadanadagaru

I am closely watching the different posts on the Subject. - and enjoying the

different perspectives.

 

It is difficult to draw rigid boundariers for discussions on the groupsite and

progress enlarging the boundaries gradually to obtain a progressive

perspective's a topic : hence I prefer to wait and sort these views witn a

dateline.

 

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

PraNAms to Michael and Sreenivas.

 

Originally I agreed with Sreenivas, based on simple

logic.

[Guest guest]

List Moderators' Note: Please do not include the entire message of previous

poster(s) while sending your reply. Members are requested to keep the minimum

text (as it is done here) while replying.

 

 

Reversal of teaching can occur due to three different situations

One is where we have progressed to understand better or in another way subject

to the limitations placed by the Sastra's in our case.

And the other is when we do not understand and need to find a way out -

and finally when there is some compulsive reason , external to the subject, to

give a new interpretation.

 

 

I have been watching the post's and the need to examine the Proposition

exclusively in the light of Sankara's words ( The connect between the topic

and title) and where we find ourselves handicapped that we need to look up to

others is yet to addressed.

 

 

 

Steve Stoker <otnac6 wrote:

We are stuck with the title

- What did Shankara really teach? -although the

contents of the discussion are not much to do with the

title. I am not sure what happended to the original

poster Sriram who started this topic.

[Guest guest]

Hi Sada-ji (and Michael and Sreenivas),

 

 

 

Just in case you are unaware (though you probably are), there is a whole

chapter on non-apprehension in Swami Satprakashananda's 'Methods of

Knowledge'. He deals with all the different interpretations and beliefs of

the different philosophical systems. It is all very readable and

understandable. He explains the Vedanta ParibhAsa viewpoint (which must be a

lot easier than trying to read in the original from all accounts!) Of

course, you have to accept that he knows what he is talking about. But

having read this book, I think I am happy to do that.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of kuntimaddi sadananda

12 January 2008 04:11

advaitin

RE: What did Sankara really teach

 

 

 

PraNAms to Michael and Sreenivas.

 

Originally I agreed with Sreenivas, based on simple

logic. I am trying to understand Vedanta Paribhaasha

of Dharmaraja adhvarindra. the text is reather terse,

Logic is rather difficult to follow, and sanskrit

version seems to be easier to read than the english

translation.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dannis - you have saved some of my efforts. I have to

get hold of the book. I was forcing myself to read VP.

I hope I can get somewhere in Chennai.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

 

> Hi Sada-ji (and Michael and Sreenivas),

>

>

>

> Just in case you are unaware (though you probably

> are), there is a whole

> chapter on non-apprehension in Swami

> Satprakashananda's 'Methods of

> Knowledge'. He deals with all the different

> interpretations and beliefs of

> the different philosophical systems. It is all very

> readable and

> understandable. He explains the Vedanta ParibhAsa

> viewpoint (which must be a

> lot easier than trying to read in the original from

> all accounts!) Of

> course, you have to accept that he knows what he is

> talking about. But

> having read this book, I think I am happy to do

> that.

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

>

>

> advaitin

> [advaitin ] On Behalf

> Of kuntimaddi sadananda

> 12 January 2008 04:11

> advaitin

> RE: What did Sankara really

> teach

>

>

>

> PraNAms to Michael and Sreenivas.

>

> Originally I agreed with Sreenivas, based on simple

> logic. I am trying to understand Vedanta Paribhaasha

> of Dharmaraja adhvarindra. the text is reather

> terse,

> Logic is rather difficult to follow, and sanskrit

> version seems to be easier to read than the english

> translation.

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

[Guest guest]

Try RK Mutt , it can be obtained on the web sales from Advaita Ashram

http://www.advaitaashrama.org/publication/book-details.php?bid=251

 

 

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why delete messages? Unlimited storage is just a click away.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hello All!

 

What did Sankara really teach? This could go on

forever, but ultimately what Sankara taught depends

upon the individual who receives or reads the

teachings. Depending upon " where the individual is "

the teachings will have different meaning and

importance. We can never forget that individuals are

just that--individuals--and therefore different. My

" level " of understanding changes.

 

At one time I believed in Santa Claus. I no longer do.

At one time I believed in a white-haired, wise old

man, who sat in heaven looking down on creation and

somehow knowing everything at once. I no longer do. At

one time I believed that various " spiritual practices "

would some how get me to " enlightenment " or

" self-realization " . I no longer do...

 

....Yet there are people who believe in all the above

teachings at this moment and I can't say they're

wrong. A child believing in Santa Claus is at one

stage or level. And maybe it's a necessary stage.

 

There is no ultimate authority for what Sankara taught

except the authority one believes IS the authority. So

it comes down to the individual stating " This is what

Sankara taught " and for that individual it will be the

truth--at that moment. But there is no guarantee that

that won't change! Maybe a belief in Santa Claus or a

white-haired god is is absolutely needed at the

moment. But who among us is free from change in every

sense of the word and in every area of life, including

beliefs?

 

The fact that I had all those beliefs mentioned and

now believe differently is proof enough for me that we

are certain of our beliefs until we are no longer

certain.

 

Maybe we get beyond belief to the realm of knowledge,

where we say " I know! " . Then we have the belief that

we " know " ...so...I don't know!!!

 

Who does " know " ? If I find someone who " knows " and I

say " he knows " , then I have the belief that another

" knows " , but I DON'T know--the other knows!

 

 

______________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve,

 

 

 

All that you say is very reasonable and the principle of interim

understandings being replaced by more sophisticated ones is central to

advaita. Nevertheless, self-knowledge is not a belief - otherwise there

would be no such thing as enlightenment!

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Steve Stoker

16 January 2008 19:23

advaitin

RE: RE: What did Sankara really teach

 

 

 

Hello All!

 

What did Sankara really teach? This could go on

forever, but ultimately what Sankara taught depends

upon the individual who receives or reads the

teachings. Depending upon " where the individual is "

the teachings will have different meaning and

importance. We can never forget that individuals are

just that--individuals--and therefore different. My

" level " of understanding changes.

 

 

 

 

..

 

 

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

9005/stime=1200511363/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848586/nc3=5045821>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Well said, Dennis-ji.

 

" I AM " can never be a belief. It is ever-present KNOWLEDGE and

perhaps the only thing truly known. The rest of all we know is

disputable and may vary from person to person.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

 

> All that you say is very reasonable and the principle of interim

> understandings being replaced by more sophisticated ones is central

to

> advaita. Nevertheless, self-knowledge is not a belief - otherwise

there

> would be no such thing as enlightenment!

>

[Guest guest]

Hello my shakta -vedanti Nair Saheb !

 

may i prsent a small correction to your statement pl, if you don't

mind !

 

you state :

 

( " I AM " can never be a belief. It is ever-present KNOWLEDGE and

perhaps the only thing truly known. The rest of all we know is

disputable and may vary from person to person.)

 

" i am " is not *****ever prsent knowledge ****** because when you

put this in this kind of language - there is a tacit assumption

of 'subject and 'object' ... who is the knower - what is to be

known ! so , even what you state is NOT correct ! " i am " is just

a state of 'beingness "

 

NAIRJI ! THE 17th century French philosopher René Descartes USED

TO SAY : " I think, therefore I am " . BUT , WE VEDANTINS say " I

am , therefore I think "

 

ctually Vedantins even stop thinking or acting after they reach a

state of 'I am ness ' ! Big smile !

 

nairji ,

 

" The Sea

Will be the Sea

Whatever the drop's philosophy " -

 

 

ENJOY ! LIFE IS TOO SHORT !

[Guest guest]

Dear Madam Bhagini-ji.

 

I simply don't have the time, capacity or inclination to reply your

contrived questions. Kindly pardon me.

 

I do mind your correcting me the way you have done. Well, if there

are so many censors around, nobody can write anything comfortably.

This was not the situation here before.

 

Lastly, mind you, I am not a drop. I am the sea.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

advaitin , " bhagini_niveditaa "

<bhagini_niveditaa wrote:

>

> Hello my shakta -vedanti Nair Saheb !

>

> may i prsent a small correction to your statement pl, if you don't

> mind !

>

> you state :

>

> ( " I AM " can never be a belief. It is ever-present KNOWLEDGE and

> perhaps the only thing truly known. The rest of all we know is

> disputable and may vary from person to person.)

>

> " i am " is not *****ever prsent knowledge ****** because when you

> put this in this kind of language - there is a tacit assumption

> of 'subject and 'object' ... who is the knower - what is to be

> known ! so , even what you state is NOT correct ! " i am " is just

> a state of 'beingness "

>

> NAIRJI ! THE 17th century French philosopher René Descartes USED

> TO SAY : " I think, therefore I am " . BUT , WE VEDANTINS say " I

> am , therefore I think "

>

> ctually Vedantins even stop thinking or acting after they reach a

> state of 'I am ness ' ! Big smile !

>

> nairji ,

>

> " The Sea

> Will be the Sea

> Whatever the drop's philosophy " -

>

>

> ENJOY ! LIFE IS TOO SHORT !

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Well said, Dennis-ji.

>

> " I AM " can never be a belief. ....

> Madathil Nair

> _______________

 

 

May I in this context of " I AM " refer to Shri Nair's write up

titled " Who Am I " , presently on the bulletin board at advaita.org.uk

please?

 

Kindly correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

 

The first paragraph of the article quotes Shri Ramana that Self-

inquiry is a (sort of) continuous reflection like an 'unbroken

string.' But the string obviouosly breaks reaching the terminal

point of " non-negatable substratum that answers the 'Who am I'

enquiry " as said in the 2nd para. The 3rd para suggests that this

can be practiced and the end result of the practice is 'an awareness

of himself.' The question is whether any sort of practice can lead

to something different from Long Term Potentiation?

 

The next para says that " That is the 'I am' default of Nisargadatta

Maharaj, if I understand him right. "

 

From Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj's dialogs of late 1979 and early 1980

(published under the title " I am Unborn " , two things come out:

 

a) The Question " Who Am I " has no answer.

(Implicitly any answer arrived at would be a concept).

 

b) One has to give up " I am " and transcend it to arrive at whatever

that is.

 

Thanks and regards,

ramesam

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

-- In advaitin , " vijaya " <ramesamvijaya wrote:

a) The Question " Who Am I " has no answer.

> (Implicitly any answer arrived at would be a concept).

 

Respected Sir,

 

The question " who Am I " has the answer.

 

The answer is the non-verbal, non-conceptual, self-luminous,

self-evident, self-established, un-negatable one.

The Upanishads have given the answer to that question.

 

If you investigate who exists prior to the formulation of the very

question itself, the answer is revealed.

 

With warm and respectful regards

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! sreenivasa-ji,

 

i agree, verbatim, with your reply to the question [ " who am i? " ].

 

however, i also completely agree with what vijaya-ji said, and for

that matter what nair-ji said as well as adi-ji (a.k.a. smt. bhagini,

who evidently misunderstood the intent of nair-ji's use of the

word " knowledge, " which--i'm sure she realizes--in vedantic

terminology is " jnanam. " )

 

i always liked framing the final response [to the atmavichara] as

an " answerless answer, " which amazingly enough is a fusion of your

and vijaya-ji's lexicon. (i also wanted to point out this interesting

*synchronicity*!)

 

anyway, this all represents a definitive example beautifully

demonstrating how important a role semantics plays in our

communication; something i also tend to forget in the course of my

daily interactions. we all have to try to uncover the *intent* of

what the speaker/writer is trying to say. and it seems to me that

more times than not we're afterall really saying the same thing!

 

i'm pointing this out because i think it's invaluable to realize how

we'd likely be so much more in tune, as a civilization, if we keep a

vigilant reminder to focus more on our commonality than differences.

 

namaste,

frank

 

____________________________

 

advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145

wrote:

>

> H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

> Pranams to all.

>

> -- In advaitin , " vijaya " <ramesamvijaya@> wrote:

> a) The Question " Who Am I " has no answer.

> > (Implicitly any answer arrived at would be a concept).

>

> Respected Sir,

>

> The question " who Am I " has the answer.

>

> The answer is the non-verbal, non-conceptual, self-luminous,

> self-evident, self-established, un-negatable one.

> The Upanishads have given the answer to that question.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Whoever you are, the immediate connections in the string you have

used speak volumes about your actual intentions. Otherwise, there is

no explanation why your doubts popped up just today. My post under

reference is more than a month old.

 

Pretense of doubt is a convenient weapon here to prove the other guy

wrong and make his life uncomfortable. Why do people deliberately

want to believe that the other guy is always ignorant!?

 

Well, to address your doubts, I don't understand what is meant

by " Long Term Potentiation " . If you meant auto-suggestion or auto

brainwashing, then I should really feel sorry for you. Reflection is

a part of advaitic sAdhana. If you don't have faith in it and think

that it won't deliver the end result, then that is your problem.

 

About the following conclusions you have reached reading Maharaj,

please see within :

 

> (a) The Question " Who Am I " has no answer.

> (Implicitly any answer arrived at would be a concept).

 

[You are right. The question has no answer in the question and

answer sense of our phenomenal. But, the question itself is an

answer in view of my self-evident nature. I am always available to

me is the understanding needed, whereby " Who am I? " is instantly

answered " I am " . Reflection reinforces the self-evidence and brings

it into focus, which otherwise remains clouded or buried.]

 

> b) One has to give up " I am " and transcend it to arrive at

whatever that is.

 

[That 'whatever that is' is " I am " whether you like it or not.]

 

Immense thanks to Shri Murthy-ji for his explanation. Appreciate it.

 

Frank-ji, I can't take your explanation of simple misunderstanding.

There is more to all what is happening than meets the eyes.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________________

 

 

 

advaitin , " vijaya " <ramesamvijaya wrote:

>

> advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

> <madathilnair@> wrote:

> >

> > Well said, Dennis-ji.

> >

> > " I AM " can never be a belief. ....

> > Madathil Nair

> > _______________

>

>

> May I in this context of " I AM " refer to Shri Nair's write up

> titled " Who Am I " , presently on the bulletin board at

advaita.org.uk

> please?

>

> Kindly correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

>

> The first paragraph of the article quotes Shri Ramana that Self-

> inquiry is a (sort of) continuous reflection like an 'unbroken

> string.' But the string obviouosly breaks reaching the terminal

> point of " non-negatable substratum that answers the 'Who am I'

> enquiry " as said in the 2nd para. The 3rd para suggests that this

> can be practiced and the end result of the practice is 'an

awareness

> of himself.' The question is whether any sort of practice can lead

> to something different from Long Term Potentiation?

>

> The next para says that " That is the 'I am' default of Nisargadatta

> Maharaj, if I understand him right. "

>

> From Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj's dialogs of late 1979 and early

1980

> (published under the title " I am Unborn " , two things come out:

>

> a) The Question " Who Am I " has no answer.

> (Implicitly any answer arrived at would be a concept).

>

> b) One has to give up " I am " and transcend it to arrive at

whatever

> that is.

[Guest guest]

Mr. Nair Jee,

 

Taking your self a bit too seriously aren't you?

 

Does the Ocean need to proclaim itself to " others " ?

 

If there is only the Ocean, what is there to proclaim itself too.

 

Wake up.

 

- The Self of your self

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

 

> Lastly, mind you, I am not a drop. I am the sea.

>

> PraNAms.

>

[Guest guest]

That was meant for Madam,

Not for you suk_b drop.

 

Ocean

_________

 

advaitin , " suk_b " <suk_b wrote:

>

> Mr. Nair Jee,

>

> Taking your self a bit too seriously aren't you?

>

> Does the Ocean need to proclaim itself to " others " ?

>

> If there is only the Ocean, what is there to proclaim itself too.

>

> Wake up.

>

> - The Self of your self

>

> advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

> <madathilnair@> wrote:

> >

>

> > Lastly, mind you, I am not a drop. I am the sea.

> >

> > PraNAms.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

oh! oh! nairji! Please be 'Calm' like the Sea ! DON'T BE SO

TURBULENT LIKE THE OCEAN ! i am simply a 'drop ' wooing the ocean

but you are the great 'sea' itself! it is the nature of the Waves

to rise and fall but the 'sea' is calm and tranquil! smile :-) BE

CALM!

 

please - don't loose your 'cool' so fast !

 

Let me remind you even the great Adi shankara bhagvadapada says in

Shatpadi stotra -

 

Oh! Protector! Even with the difference (between You and me) passing

off, I become Yours but You do not become mine. Indeed (though there

is no difference between the waves and the ocean) the wave belongs

to the ocean but nowhere (never) does the ocean belong to the wave.

 

YOU ARE A SEA OF CONSCIOUSNESS ; I AM JUST A WAVE OF CONFUSION!

 

nairji -please ! if our faith is strong , no body can make us

uncomfortable - not all the 'madams' in the world ! !~

 

IF I AM MAKING YOU UNCOMFORTABLE , YOU ARE MAKE fRANKJI TEN TIMES

MORE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH YOUR FRQUENT INSINUATIONS AND INNUENDOS!

 

one of the mpst difficult things to overcome in Sadhnana is a

stubborn 'ego' - anyway .....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Dear Madam Bhagini-ji.

>

> I simply don't have the time, capacity or inclination to reply

your

> contrived questions. Kindly pardon me.

>

> I do mind your correcting me the way you have done. Well, if

there

> are so many censors around, nobody can write anything

comfortably.

> This was not the situation here before.

>

> Lastly, mind you, I am not a drop. I am the sea.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> _________________

>

> advaitin , " bhagini_niveditaa "

> <bhagini_niveditaa@> wrote:

> >

> > Hello my shakta -vedanti Nair Saheb !

> >

> > may i prsent a small correction to your statement pl, if you

don't

> > mind !

> >

> > you state :

> >

> > ( " I AM " can never be a belief. It is ever-present KNOWLEDGE

and

> > perhaps the only thing truly known. The rest of all we know is

> > disputable and may vary from person to person.)

> >

> > " i am " is not *****ever prsent knowledge ****** because when

you

> > put this in this kind of language - there is a tacit assumption

> > of 'subject and 'object' ... who is the knower - what is to be

> > known ! so , even what you state is NOT correct ! " i am " is

just

> > a state of 'beingness "

> >

> > NAIRJI ! THE 17th century French philosopher René Descartes

USED

> > TO SAY : " I think, therefore I am " . BUT , WE VEDANTINS say " I

> > am , therefore I think "

> >

> > ctually Vedantins even stop thinking or acting after they reach

a

> > state of 'I am ness ' ! Big smile !

> >

> > nairji ,

> >

> > " The Sea

> > Will be the Sea

> > Whatever the drop's philosophy " -

> >

> >

> > ENJOY ! LIFE IS TOO SHORT !

> >

>

[Guest guest]

IF I AM MAKING YOU UNCOMFORTABLE , YOU ARE MAKE fRANKJI TEN TIMES

MORE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH YOUR FRQUENT INSINUATIONS AND INNUENDOS!

 

 

 

 

 

praNAms

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

I dont know what is all these about!!! is asking the questions in this

list a big crime?? bhagini mAtAji often complaining that we, the doubting

thomases (that is what she called me in her previous mail...I dont know

what exactly does it mean :-)) , causing undue stress & pressure to the

*aged* scholars in this list...She also indirectly implied that Sri Subbu

prabhuji's departure from the list is because of my interaction with

him!!!...I'd like to clarify to the list that I've been in touch with Sri

Subbu prabhuji over mail & has been kind enough to answer all my queries

with patience & I also met him personally sometime back at his residence.

No need to mention, he has his own reasons for quitting the list

activities...

 

 

I'd like to know from moderators whether there is any new set of rules

introduced with regard to asking queries in the list...

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

If you have any sense left in you, please do me (the List also) the

following favours:

 

1. Don't quote quotes that don't even have tangential relevance to

the issues under discussion.

2. Don't be a self-proclaimed spokeswoman for others like Frankji,

Sastriji, Sadaji et al. If I have any differences with them, I can

sort them out myself with them without your august mediation. If I

have made them uncomfortable, they have every right to point the

fault out to me.

 

To say the least, your mails, even the prolific eulogies, are agenda-

driven - probably to drive a wedge betweem the moderators. I can't

accept them silently.

 

Good bye, as far as you are concerned.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin , " bhagini_niveditaa "

<bhagini_niveditaa wrote:

>

> oh! oh! nairji! Please be 'Calm' like the Sea ! DON'T BE SO

> TURBULENT LIKE THE OCEAN ! i am simply a 'drop ' wooing the ocean

> but you are the great 'sea' itself! it is the nature of the Waves

> to rise and fall but the 'sea' is calm and tranquil! smile :-) BE

> CALM!

>

> please - don't loose your 'cool' so fast !

>

> Let me remind you even the great Adi shankara bhagvadapada says in

> Shatpadi stotra -

>

> Oh! Protector! Even with the difference (between You and me)

passing

> off, I become Yours but You do not become mine. Indeed (though

there

> is no difference between the waves and the ocean) the wave belongs

> to the ocean but nowhere (never) does the ocean belong to the

wave.

>

> YOU ARE A SEA OF CONSCIOUSNESS ; I AM JUST A WAVE OF CONFUSION!

>

> nairji -please ! if our faith is strong , no body can make us

> uncomfortable - not all the 'madams' in the world ! !~

>

> IF I AM MAKING YOU UNCOMFORTABLE , YOU ARE MAKE fRANKJI TEN TIMES

> MORE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH YOUR FRQUENT INSINUATIONS AND INNUENDOS!

>

> one of the mpst difficult things to overcome in Sadhnana is a

> stubborn 'ego' - anyway .....

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

> <madathilnair@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Madam Bhagini-ji.

> >

> > I simply don't have the time, capacity or inclination to reply

> your

> > contrived questions. Kindly pardon me.

> >

> > I do mind your correcting me the way you have done. Well, if

> there

> > are so many censors around, nobody can write anything

> comfortably.

> > This was not the situation here before.

> >

> > Lastly, mind you, I am not a drop. I am the sea.

> >

> > PraNAms.

> >

> > Madathil Nair

> > _________________

> >

> > advaitin , " bhagini_niveditaa "

> > <bhagini_niveditaa@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hello my shakta -vedanti Nair Saheb !

> > >

> > > may i prsent a small correction to your statement pl, if you

> don't

> > > mind !

> > >

> > > you state :

> > >

> > > ( " I AM " can never be a belief. It is ever-present KNOWLEDGE

> and

> > > perhaps the only thing truly known. The rest of all we know

is

> > > disputable and may vary from person to person.)

> > >

> > > " i am " is not *****ever prsent knowledge ****** because when

> you

> > > put this in this kind of language - there is a tacit

assumption

> > > of 'subject and 'object' ... who is the knower - what is to be

> > > known ! so , even what you state is NOT correct ! " i am " is

> just

> > > a state of 'beingness "

> > >

> > > NAIRJI ! THE 17th century French philosopher René Descartes

> USED

> > > TO SAY : " I think, therefore I am " . BUT , WE VEDANTINS say "

I

> > > am , therefore I think "

> > >

> > > ctually Vedantins even stop thinking or acting after they

reach

> a

> > > state of 'I am ness ' ! Big smile !

> > >

> > > nairji ,

> > >

> > > " The Sea

> > > Will be the Sea

> > > Whatever the drop's philosophy " -

> > >

> > >

> > > ENJOY ! LIFE IS TOO SHORT !

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Nair,

You have put it beautifully. I have also felt the same way sometimes,

but did not know how to express it as beautifully as you have done.

S.N.Sastri

In advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Pretense of doubt is a convenient weapon here to prove the other guy

> wrong and make his life uncomfortable. Why do people deliberately

> want to believe that the other guy is always ignorant!?

> Madathil Nair

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhasker Prabbhuji:

 

The purpose of most of our discussions is to share our knowledge with

others to clarify/correct our and others' understanding of Vedanta

and Scriptures. None of us can claim that we have fully understood

everything that has been said and written by the saints of the past

and present. This is our limitation and a significant number of

statements uttered or written by the saints can neither be proved

correct nor be proved wrong! Under those circumstances, SILENCE can

provide us the time to contemplate so that we can focus on our

strength inside rather look for answers outside. In recent times,

Ramana Maharishi practiced Silence as a potent medium of

communication, and his silence provided answers to unanswerable

questions. Interestingly, for Ramana Maharishi sitting in a cave did

work well! But we haven't reached that stage and we do need

discussions but we should remind ourselves the power of silence and

we should use it when it becomes necessary. Silence is the last and

the best available resource to get answers and silence can penetrate

and go beyond our mind and intellect.

 

Though you tried to describe `adjectives' to describe `you' and `me'

we both need to recognize that we have no `adjectives.' Though we may

look, write and talk differently, Vedanta says that the - you in me

read the me in you!

 

I like your posting # 39050 where you have provided insights by

raising many questions. They are quite valid from your point of view

and you will likely received answers from others' point of view. Our

communication is not perfect since we have to use words of language

which has its own limitations. Given these facts, we have to learn

to stop when it becomes necessary! We can't be always rights and

others can't be always at fault!! The serenity prayer provides us the

thumb rule to resolve our problems: " " God grant me the serenity to

accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I

can, and the wisdom to know the difference "

 

In your post # 39047 you have questions regarding moderation. Our

dear Dennisji has put together a comprehensive list of list

guidelines in a summarized form. They are available in the file

section and if you need it, I will be more than happy to email to

you. In a recent post ( Post # 39048) Nairji has eloquently provided

some additional guidelines that are applicable to all members.

 

In conclusion, let me say that I always admire your keen interest and

knowledge on Shankara's advaita philosophy and keep participate in

the list discussions,

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> 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 :-))

 

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote: (# 39047)

>

> I also met Subbuji personally sometime back at his residence.

> No need to mention, he has his own reasons for quitting the list

> activities...

>

>

> I'd like to know from moderators whether there is any new set of

rules

> introduced with regard to asking queries in the list...

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Well, nairji , you have proved beyond a reasonable doubt rhat in

Vyavharika you are as 'human' as the rest of us prone to Anger and

egotistical responses but in paramarthika you are a SEA OF

CONSCIOUSNESS ! what can i say ?

 

nairji - you work on your 'anger ' and false ego , i will work on my

so called 'agenda driven eulogies .... Together , we can overcome

all our arishtavargas ! there is strength in unity ..

 

never say Goodbye to Truth!

 

take care , dear !

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> If you have any sense left in you, please do me (the List also)

the

>