Guest guest Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 I changed the subject line to better reflect the discussion topic. On 16/01/2008, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: > > 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!) My usage of the word " contemporary " has probably created more confusion than clarity. What I meant was that the various darshana-s are components of an integrated whole. Though there is always an element of interaction with the " thoughts of the day " , the darshana-s don't quite fall into this category. The study of advaita-vedAnta has always *included* the study of nyAya, vyAkaraNa, yoga-shaastra, etc (and likewise for the other schools). The traditional scholar-practitioner of advaita is one who already has a solid background in the vedic mantra-shaastra and the vedAnga-s. Even today, advaitins from traditional circles, both saMnyAsin-s and gRhastha-s, tend have a grounding in mImAMsa and nyAya, and typically also in vyAkaraNa and yoga-shAstra. tAntric upAsanA of the SrIvidyA variety also has a long association with the advaita tradition. Gaudapada, Sankara, Suresvara etc are all illustrations of the above approach. > > 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. Traditionally, the texts are supposed to be an aid to understanding the guru's teachings. What you are saying above seems to be the opposite - that we may need help in order to understand the texts! This is a clear instance of the difference between the traditional approach and the " modern " text-based approach. The bhAShya-s do not exhaust the full breadth & range of advaita-vedAnta as a tradition, just as the veda itself does not cover the entire breadth & range of Hindu tradition. Otherwise, all the other texts would have been redundant. The bhAShya-s are important because the saMpradAya uses them, and not vice-versa. An uttamAdhikArI will need no texts. dhanyavAdaH Ramesh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 Dear Ramesh-ji, I have no problem with anything that you say. For someone, almost certainly living in India, who has direct access to a sampradAya guru, I doubt that concerns such as I originally expressed would ever arise. However, you may not appreciate the problems that are typically faced by someone living in the West, usually with no hope of any such access. Specifically in the nineteen eighties, I was being taught what was purported to be advaita by teachers who were themselves students of other students, with only the head of the school (who we never met) ever having access to the shaMkarAchArya. Thus, for example we were being told that the universe was 'spoken into creation' and we were not being told anything about ajAtivAda. The only genuine access to advaita that I had *was* through texts and yes, I did need help to understand them! This is the sort of confusion to which I was referring. Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Ramesh Krishnamurthy 17 January 2008 13:58 advaitin sampradaya Traditionally, the texts are supposed to be an aid to understanding the guru's teachings. What you are saying above seems to be the opposite - that we may need help in order to understand the texts! This is a clear instance of the difference between the traditional approach and the " modern " text-based approach. The bhAShya-s do not exhaust the full breadth & range of advaita-vedAnta as a tradition, just as the veda itself does not cover the entire breadth & range of Hindu tradition. Otherwise, all the other texts would have been redundant. The bhAShya-s are important because the saMpradAya uses them, and not vice-versa. An uttamAdhikArI will need no texts. dhanyavAdaH Ramesh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 DON'T WORRY, BE HAPPY, DENNIS-JI. That is the way Providence meant it for you. I don't see any reason for you to regret it! The guidance as well as the will comes from above. Geography can't put barriers against the bounty of Grace. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > Dear Ramesh-ji, > > > > I have no problem with anything that you say. For someone, almost certainly > living in India, who has direct access to a sampradAya guru, I doubt that > concerns such as I originally expressed would ever arise. However, you may > not appreciate the problems that are typically faced by someone living in > the West, usually with no hope of any such access. > > > > Specifically in the nineteen eighties, I was being taught what was purported > to be advaita by teachers who were themselves students of other students, > with only the head of the school (who we never met) ever having access to > the shaMkarAchArya. Thus, for example we were being told that the universe > was 'spoken into creation' and we were not being told anything about > ajAtivAda. The only genuine access to advaita that I had *was* through texts > and yes, I did need help to understand them! This is the sort of confusion > to which I was referring. > > > > Best wishes, > > Dennis > > > > advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf > Of Ramesh Krishnamurthy > 17 January 2008 13:58 > advaitin > sampradaya > > > Traditionally, the texts are supposed to be an aid to understanding > the guru's teachings. What you are saying above seems to be the > opposite - that we may need help in order to understand the texts! > This is a clear instance of the difference between the traditional > approach and the " modern " text-based approach. > > The bhAShya-s do not exhaust the full breadth & range of > advaita-vedAnta as a tradition, just as the veda itself does not cover > the entire breadth & range of Hindu tradition. Otherwise, all the > other texts would have been redundant. > > The bhAShya-s are important because the saMpradAya uses them, and not > vice-versa. An uttamAdhikArI will need no texts. > > dhanyavAdaH > Ramesh > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 Dear Dennis-ji, On 17/01/2008, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: > > I have no problem with anything that you say. For someone, almost certainly > living in India, who has direct access to a sampradAya guru, I doubt that > concerns such as I originally expressed would ever arise. However, you may > not appreciate the problems that are typically faced by someone living in > the West, usually with no hope of any such access. Actually, I have no problems appreciating your situation, because the situation in India is not much better. Even here, one has to count oneself lucky to get access to traditional teachers. One may get the chance to hear a few discourses or attend a few classes but when it comes to personal interaction with a traditional teacher, one has to be at the right place at the right time and it isn't easy. > > Specifically in the nineteen eighties, I was being taught what was purported > to be advaita by teachers who were themselves students of other students, > with only the head of the school (who we never met) ever having access to > the shaMkarAchArya. Thus, for example we were being told that the universe > was 'spoken into creation' and we were not being told anything about > ajAtivAda. The only genuine access to advaita that I had *was* through texts > and yes, I did need help to understand them! This is the sort of confusion > to which I was referring. I am not aware of the details of what your school (the SES) taught, but the specific example you have mentioned above is a very common motif in India. ajAtivAda does not seek to explain causation, but from a vyavahAra perspective, one needs an explanation and the idea of creation through speech/sound/vibration is common to several Hindu traditions and is explicated in various ways. Even in the " core " advaita tradition, we have the chAndogya Sruti saying that all causality has its origin in speech (vAcAraMbhaNam....). Then there is the spanda concept which Sankara refers to in the saundaryalaharI and which is also referred to in the mAnasollAsa by sureSvara. Further detailing of this is available in several tAntric traditions including SrIvidyA which has had a long association with advaita. Then of course we have the classic imagery of the dancing Siva (naTarAja) which is again a depiction of the " vibrations " of creation & destruction. I am not competent to go into the details here, but the entire system of mantra-shAstra hinges on the dynamics of sound and so the linking of causality with sound/vibration is very much in tune with various upAsanA techniques which the advaitins (as well as others) practise. Ramesh 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.