Guest guest Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 " bhava Eva bhavaan^ iti mE nitaraaM, samajaayata cEtasi koutukitaa, mama vaaraya mOha mahaa jaladhiM, bhava SaMkara dEsika mE saraNaM " " I praise and seek the protection of Sankara, When I understood it is Him, I became ecstatic with happiness, And request, please dry the ocean of passion in me. " How hard to practise Advaita How easy to preach Advaita! How hard to improve our understanding How easy to prove one's standing! How hard to walk spirituality's razor edge How easy to jump to conclusions and judge! How hard to discover the state of Silence How easy to cover it by thought eloquence! How hard to cross the ocean of passion How easy to cross by Thy ocean of compassion! Hari OM! -Srinivas advaitin , " bhagini_niveditaa " wrote: > 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 ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 Namaste Sastri-ji and Sunder-ji. Shri Nagulapalli-ji is giving me some good advice. Kindly check if the transliteration of the verse and its translation provided is accurate so that I can follow it by the very letter. PraNAms. Madathil Nair _____________ advaitin , " Srinivas Nagulapalli " <srini_nagul wrote: > > > " bhava Eva bhavaan^ iti mE nitaraaM, > samajaayata cEtasi koutukitaa, > mama vaaraya mOha mahaa jaladhiM, > bhava SaMkara dEsika mE saraNaM " > > " I praise and seek the protection of Sankara, > When I understood it is Him, > I became ecstatic with happiness, > And request, please dry the ocean of passion in me. " > > How hard to practise Advaita > How easy to preach Advaita! > > How hard to improve our understanding > How easy to prove one's standing! > > How hard to walk spirituality's razor edge > How easy to jump to conclusions and judge! > > How hard to discover the state of Silence > How easy to cover it by thought eloquence! > > How hard to cross the ocean of passion > How easy to cross by Thy ocean of compassion! > > Hari OM! > -Srinivas > > > > advaitin , " bhagini_niveditaa " wrote: > > 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 ! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 Bhaskar Prabhuji : i am surprosed you do not know wht a doubting Thomas means - Here is what it means ! " Doubting Thomas is a term that is used to describe someone who will refuse to believe something without direct, personal evidence; a skeptic. " The term is based on the Biblical account of Thomas the Apostle, who doubted the resurrection of Jesus and demanded to feel Jesus' wounds before being convinced (John 20:24-29). This was one of the first accounts of visions of Jesus and Mary to imply physical contact, although the Bible does not mention if actual contact took place. After seeing Jesus alive and being offered the opportunity to touch his wounds — according to the author of the Gospel of John — Thomas professed his faith in Jesus; on this account he is also called Thomas the Believer. " (from wikipedia) You and i are not so 'powerful' that we can drive Shri subbuji away ! But , it was obvious from many of his mails that he was tired of explaining the same thing over and over aagain to some people on the list who engazed in Vithanda vada ! so , bhaskarji , if the shoe fits, please wear it ! if not , do not worry about it ! i am sorry if i am kindly cruel! nobody has any objections to your asking questions or clearing your doubts - you are one of the best contributors of this group ... but it is just that we cannot rewrite Shanakara's Advaita to accomadate our views ( yours , mine , or vinayaka's) ! Shankara's advaita is what it is -we cannot make it patanjali's advaita ! anyway , enough said ! pl do not refer to Shastriji as 'aged' that is downright rude ! hopefully , you will move on .... i am also retreating into external silence ..... sometimes Ramji is right .... but more import6ant than external silence is internal silence - silencing of all these thoughrs ..... thanx ps - please do not respond to this with- i am alreadty drained emotionally ! please do not Take Hari's name in vain! > 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 Dear Shri Nair, I do not know whether you are seriosly asking me or it is some joke. Anyhow, since I love this shloka I am giving my translation, though the translation given by Nagulapalli-ji is all right. The shloka given is from toTakAshTaka, composed by toTaka,one of the four disciples of Sri Sankara and addressed to Sankara.. I would translate it thus: Intense enthusiasm has risen up in my mind with the realization that you are Lord Shiva Himself. Kindly save me from the ocean of delusion. O Sankara, be my refuge. THe other stanzas are not translations of any shlokas that I know of, but they are excellent advice for every one. Regards, S.N.Sastri In advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > Namaste Sastri-ji and Sunder-ji. > > Shri Nagulapalli-ji is giving me some good advice. Kindly check if > the transliteration of the verse and its translation provided is > accurate so that I can follow it by the very letter. > > PraNAms. > > Madathil Nair > _____________ > > advaitin , " Srinivas Nagulapalli " > <srini_nagul@> wrote: > > > > > > " bhava Eva bhavaan^ iti mE nitaraaM, > > samajaayata cEtasi koutukitaa, > > mama vaaraya mOha mahaa jaladhiM, > > bhava SaMkara dEsika mE saraNaM " > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 Namaste Sastri-ji. Immense thanks for the translation and identifying the verse's source. I was really seriously interested particuarly about the word bhava (a name of Siva). I thought that word itself, with its different shades of meaning, could generate some insights. And then, I didn't also find any meaning of ecstasy in the verse as claimed in Shri Nagulappalli's translation. I, therefore, felt I was missing something due to my inadequate knowledge of Sanskrit. PraNAms. Madathil Nair _______________ advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > Dear Shri Nair, > I do not know whether you are seriosly asking me or it is some joke. > Anyhow, since I love this shloka I am giving my translation, though > the translation given by Nagulapalli-ji is all right. > The shloka given is from toTakAshTaka, composed by toTaka,one of the > four disciples of Sri Sankara and addressed to Sankara.. I would > translate it thus: > Intense enthusiasm has risen up in my mind with the realization that > you are Lord Shiva Himself. Kindly save me from the ocean of > delusion. O Sankara, be my refuge. > THe other stanzas are not translations of any shlokas that I know > of, but they are excellent advice for every one. > Regards, > S.N.Sastri > In advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " > <madathilnair@> wrote: > > > > Namaste Sastri-ji and Sunder-ji. > > > > Shri Nagulapalli-ji is giving me some good advice. Kindly check > if > > the transliteration of the verse and its translation provided is > > accurate so that I can follow it by the very letter. > > > > PraNAms. > > > > Madathil Nair > > _____________ > > > > advaitin , " Srinivas Nagulapalli " > > <srini_nagul@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > " bhava Eva bhavaan^ iti mE nitaraaM, > > > samajaayata cEtasi koutukitaa, > > > mama vaaraya mOha mahaa jaladhiM, > > > bhava SaMkara dEsika mE saraNaM " > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > Namaste Sastri-ji. > > Immense thanks for the translation and identifying the verse's source. > > I was really seriously interested particuarly about the word bhava (a > name of Siva). Namaste, The complete ashtakam is at: http://www.kamakoti.org/shlokas/kshlok1.htm There is also a link to the audio and macromedia flash display. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Dear Sri.Sadananda-ji and Sri.Micheal-ji Please accept my praNAma-s. advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > 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. From the V.P's explanation of anupalabdhi it seems it is saying that one need to have prior memory of objects to apprehend their absence at the locus. In other words, it seems validity of anupalabdhi depends on the validity of the underlying memory (smaraNa). Does V.P consider memory as pramANa? Any pointers is appreciated. Regards, Srinivas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 --- Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote: > From the V.P's explanation of anupalabdhi it seems > it is saying that > one need to have prior memory of objects to > apprehend their absence > at the locus. > > In other words, it seems validity of anupalabdhi > depends on the > validity of the underlying memory (smaraNa). Does > V.P consider > memory as pramANa? Any pointers is appreciated. Srinivas - PraNAms. Memory is not a pramaaNa - it depends on pramaaNa. Whatever stored knowledge from pramaaNas are part of the memory - that includes both pratyaksha, anumaana etc. When you recollect the memory and see it in the mind - then knowledge based on the pramaana that the memory has taken place is included. Memory becomes important not in the cognition but in the recognition process. I stared preparing the notes on the VP or more generally cognitive process in Advaita. Here is the introduction part for VP. --------------- Vedanta Paribhaasha (VP) – by Dharmaraja Advarindra (DV). Translated and Annotated by Swami Madhavananda (referred to here as commentator). The objective of the book: In the introduction Dharmaraja Advarindra (DA) states that the objective of writing VP is for gaining the knowledge of Brahman, knowing which there is no return back to the transitory world. Hence the means of gaining that knowledge (pramaaNa) is being described in detail in the text. Let us keep this in mind while understanding the text. I. Valid Knowledge and its means: Definition of PamaaNam: – pramaakaraNam pramaaNam – that which is an instrument of knowledge (pramaa). There are many instruments that are helpful for the knowledge to take place. Hence pramaaNam stands for that which is essential cause or means for the knowledge to take place, all other causes being only secondary. If we exclude the ‘recollection’ from the memory (which is part of stored knowledge from the past), the pramaaNa is defined as ‘anadhigata, abaadhitam, arthavishyayaka jnaanatvam – pramaaNam’ - means of knowledge is that which is (a) not known before (since recollection is excluded here), (b) non-negatable, and © objectifiable (arthavishya implies also ‘meaningful’, may not mean ‘useful’, although Ramanuja in his definition of pramaaNa includes ‘utility’ also as a qualifier for valid knowledge). If recollection is included, then pramaaNa is only (a) ‘non-negatable’ and (b) objectifiable entity. According to the commentator, ‘non-negatable’ means that it is not negated directly by a contradictory experience. Ex. Rope experience is contradictory to the previous snake knowledge of the same object at same place where the rope is. Implication is that if the pramaata (knower) does not have an experience that is contradictory to the previous ‘knowledge’ gained (say, that it is a snake where the rope is), even though that knowledge is erroneous from the point of an independent referee, it is still considered as ‘valid’ knowledge for that knower. It is important to recognize that unlike other philosophers who believe that validation is done by an independent ‘saakshii’, the validation rests with the knower, pramaata, only. If he does not encounter any experience that is contradictory to the previous knowledge in his life time, then that knowledge remains as valid. In advaita Vedanta, both pramaa and bhramaa (erroneous knowledge) are illumined by the saakshii. Cognition of time and space: Obviously got side tracked - will be completing slowly - The anupalabdi is discussed as the last pramaaNa. Hope it addresses the issue you have raised. PramaaNa is defined with and without inclusion of memory. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.