living guru

[Guest guest]

Hello group,

 

I was wondering if there is a necessity for being in the presence of a

living guru for the realizing of moksha?

 

Thanks in advance for any replies.

 

Best wishes,

Richard

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Richard " <richarkar wrote:

>

> Hello group,

>

> I was wondering if there is a necessity for being in the presence

of a

> living guru for the realizing of moksha?

>

> Thanks in advance for any replies.

>

> Best wishes,

> Richard

>

" Bhavanaa Tanavam Moksha Bandho Hi Dridha Bhavana. " - i think its

from Yoga Vasishta. meaning

Thought reduction is freedom,thought assertion is bondage.

So if we are able to do that a Guru in Sankalpa is good enough.

At the times of Shankara there was no written media i guess so it

was impossible to learn without a Guru.But now since now the case is

not like that it is possible to attain Moksha without directly

becoming the disciple of a living Guru.Why written media was not

popularized then is because people write things according to their

perception and perception need not be ultimate truth.So what will

happen is you wll be surrounded by thousands of ideas and this can

create problem as it is said in Vivekachudamani-

Shabdajaalam MaharaNyam Chitta BhramaNa KaraNam-

amy be translated as

collection of sound(or collection of ideas or trick of sound etc etc)

big forest etc can create confusion.

So the best practice then was Mata Pita Guru Deva meaning

Mother will show you the Father,

Father will take you to Guru

and Guru will take you to God.

So Father will take you to the right person who will be able to

teach you the truth because parents are the right persons who can

judge the intelelctual capabiliteis of their child.

 

These are all things that i read and what ever sounded logical i put

together.

 

Rgds,

Sreenath

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Richard " <richarkar wrote:

>

> Hello group,

>

> I was wondering if there is a necessity for being in the presence

of a

> living guru for the realizing of moksha?

>

> Thanks in advance for any replies.

>

> Best wishes,

> Richard

 

Dear Shri Richard,

The upanishads themselves say that brahmavidyA has to be learnt only

from a teacher. The chAndogya up.6.14.2 says, " Only a person who has

a teacher can acquire this knowledge " . chAndogya, 4.9.3 says, " The

knowledge of the Self acquired from a teacher is the best " .

Moreover, the scriptures say that the guru should not be looked upon

by the disciple as a mere human being, but should be considered as

God Himself in that form. The SvetAshvatara up. says that only a

person who has supreme devotion to God and an equal degree of

devotion to his guru will be able to understand the import of the

upanishads correctly.

From the practical point of view also a teacher is necessary. In

texts like the bhagavadgIta, and upanishads it often happens that

what is stated in an earlier chapter can be properly understood only

if one knows something relevant stated in a subsequent chapter or in

another upanishad. If a person takes up the study of the gIta on his

own, he will not know what is stated in a subsequent chapter and so

he may not be able to understand even the purport of the earlier

chapter. The help of the teacher is very necessary in such

circumstances. Any doubts arising can be cleared by the teacher.

The upanishads lay stress on hearing the upanishads from a teacher

(shravaNam). From this also it is clear that a guru is necessary.

As for as attaining moksha is concerned, the guru can only show the

way. The result depends on the disciples efforts.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

>

[Guest guest]

> advaitin , " Richard " <richarkar wrote:

 

> > I was wondering if there is a necessity for being in the presence

> of a

> > living guru for the realizing of moksha?

 

Shree Richard - PraNAms.

 

Shree Sastriji answered your question beautifully. I will provide here

a simple analogy.

 

If I need a live guide to guide me to get a Ph.D. - in any objective

field of study, I would expect lot more guidance in the subject that is

even more subtle becuase of deep-rooted wrong notions. There are always

exceptions, and exceptions are explained that they already had a live

guru in the last life, considering deep-rooted notions go beyond one

life.

 

One will discover a guru as one keeps his eyes open. Just engage

yourself with sat sangh or company of good - good people, good books

and good environment - good is that which makes your mind calm and

serened. Guru will come to you when you are ready. Or I should say you

will discover the right guru for you.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

" Richard " <richarkar wrote:

>

> I was wondering if there is a necessity for being in the presence of

a living guru for the realizing of moksha?

 

Dear Richard:

 

The question is phrased in a very peculiar way.

Nisargadatta Maharaj needed Siddharameshwar Maharaj to push him into

" himself " , establishing the sadhana that ultimately liberated him,

although Siddharameshwar was not there anymore (at least as a living

body) at the time of Nisargadatta's Realization. But he was ready for

that...

Ramana Maharshi realized alone, although he needed Arunachala (a

mountain!!) to pull him out of his home to come back to His " Home " .

But he was ready for that...

Buddha need several teachers like Alara Kalama and Uddaka before

sitting alone under the Boddhi Tree, and Realize. But he was ready for

that...

Adi Shankaracharya needed Govinda Bhagavatpada to extract from him all

the potential that was already there, and he was ready for that...

The examples could go on and on...

We need living Teacher/s for study, purification, guidance,

dissolution of doubts, but always keeping in mind that the Final Exam

is written only by our own hand. One aspect of Realization is the

Understanding that the Teacher was, is and will be the Self/Brahman

displayed within many forms and names, including " Me " .

Readiness is all that is required...

 

Regards,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Mouna,

 

What a beautiful, all-inclusive answer! After your

answer there is no more question.

 

 

______________________________\

____

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total

Access, No Cost.

http://tc.deals./tc/blockbuster/text5.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Richard,

In many shastras/scriptures and writings by teachers the necessity of a Guru

for moksha is declared and it is implied that a disciple will visit a

teacher(living) and ask to clear doubts(like in couple of writings of Sri

Sankara where through guru-shishya talk concepts are explained). Also the most

popular example of Lord Rama having gone to a guru is there. But no where has it

been specified that a 'living-guru' is needed, only that 'a Guru' is needed, has

been stated.

So ideally/theoretically it may not be a necessity for being in the presence

of a living-guru though realistically it is very beneficial as one has many

doubts regarding vedanta which a living-guru can best explain. Conlusion is that

presence of living-guru is most suitable for attaining moksha but not necessary,

the other way too leads to liberation. Examples can be sited for both.

Also in this age one can't be sure of finding an appropriate living-guru, the

qualifications for a right guru in shastras are such that hardly anyone can

fulfill. Those who claim to be jagad-gurus today are surrounded by thousands

such that one can't even ask any personal doubt from them. Hence the other way

of non-living guru is becoming more practical. And i personally feel that

acharyas of past including Vyasa and Sri Sankara had foreseen it and gave us all

the nectar of shastras in their writings, i myself am content by having Sri Adi

Sankara Himself as my Guru although He is non-living(in terms of physical body).

 

Hope this settles some of your curiosity.

 

Namastute.

 

 

 

 

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total

Access, No Cost.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear members,

Adding on to my reply on this topic in reference to the example given

by Shri Mouna on Sri Adi Sankara: well, Acharya Sankara was already

Self-realized and jeevan-mukta before He met Sri Govindapada, this is

evident from Him singing Dasa-sloki as His introduction when asked by

Sri Govindapada. So this leela/act was done to establish what is been

stated in the shastra about the importance of a Guru for Acharya who

was Siva Himself never needed a guru, similarily Krsna was already

omniscient before going to Sandipani. Thus it is crystal clear that a

Guru is needed for anything to be learnt, moksha is the ultimate. But

again back to the same question - living or non-living? Answer is BOTH

can do only depends on the devotion and diligence of the aspirant.

 

Namastute.

PS: Please go through my previous post too on the topic.

[Guest guest]

Dear Richard,

my I add something to Mounas and others posts:

Yes, readiness is all that is required. Still readiness does not fall from

heaven all of a sudden, there is a path to make you ready. And on this path a

guru is an immense blessing.

So above all: be ready

before that become ready

and before even that: want to be ready!

If you do not feel and nourish the longing to be free, mumukshutvam, you will

not become ready, you will not find a guru and of course you will not realize

moksha.

The way to nourish mumukshutvam is as Sadaji pointed out: engage

yourself with satsang or company of good - good people, good books

and good environment.

And the guru will appear to guide you home - maybe in a form you would not have

expected.

Om Shanti

Sitara

 

 

Mouna <solracartist schrieb:

" Richard " <richarkar wrote:

>

> I was wondering if there is a necessity for being in the presence of

a living guru for the realizing of moksha?

 

Dear Richard:

 

The question is phrased in a very peculiar way.

Nisargadatta Maharaj needed Siddharameshwar Maharaj to push him into

" himself " , establishing the sadhana that ultimately liberated him,

although Siddharameshwar was not there anymore (at least as a living

body) at the time of Nisargadatta's Realization. But he was ready for

that...

Ramana Maharshi realized alone, although he needed Arunachala (a

mountain!!) to pull him out of his home to come back to His " Home " .

But he was ready for that...

Buddha need several teachers like Alara Kalama and Uddaka before

sitting alone under the Boddhi Tree, and Realize. But he was ready for

that...

Adi Shankaracharya needed Govinda Bhagavatpada to extract from him all

the potential that was already there, and he was ready for that...

The examples could go on and on...

We need living Teacher/s for study, purification, guidance,

dissolution of doubts, but always keeping in mind that the Final Exam

is written only by our own hand. One aspect of Realization is the

Understanding that the Teacher was, is and will be the Self/Brahman

displayed within many forms and names, including " Me " .

Readiness is all that is required...

 

Regards,

Mouna

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lesen Sie Ihre E-Mails auf dem Handy..

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Richard " <richarkar wrote:

>

> I was wondering if there is a necessity for being in the presence of

> a living guru for the realizing of moksha?

 

Hari OM!

 

May be we need to understand what " living guru " means.

 

Guru, literally means one who dispels darkness of ignorance. Any

teacher who removes ignorance and doubts is a kind of guru. But it is

really not so much the teacher that removed the ignorance, but it is

the teaching. Teaching *is* the teacher. Teachers lived for limited

time and had limited reach. But the teachings are inspiring and

guiding millions for thousands of years and are still available.

 

Guru is not so much a person, but personality. Not so much a living

body, but living presence. Otherwise, whenever guru's body gets sick,

and worse when (s)he leaves the body, we have to hunt for another

living body that is a guru. That is like mistaking container for

contents, or residence for resident. Also in spirituality, all so

called gurus themselves denied they are simply their bodies.

 

It is even safer that way. There is a risk of misunderstanding a

person, or even their ways of living when literally taken as a body.

But there is no risk in mistaking teachings that survived the test

of time and still available for one's experience even now.

 

This is far from discounting even a bit, of immense help a living

person can provide. Undeniable is the help of a guiding hand and

speaking voice to some one trying to walk the path.

 

But at deeper level, no matter how much external help is provided,

unless we understand within, help is not fulfilled. Removal of

ignorance is not complete, unless light of understanding dawns

within, not without. So the real guru and guidance is always from

within. In fact, unless understanding is there within, we cannot even

recognize external form of guru.

 

External living guru seems to be a compassionate outer form to help

show the guru within. From that point, wherever we look, guru alone

seems to be present.

-

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Conlusion is that presence of living-guru is most suitable for attaining

moksha but not necessary

 

 

praNAms

 

 

Hare krishna

 

 

pardon me, I have not been following this thread....but, IMHO, it is not

advisable to say AchAryOpadEsha ( gurUpadEsha) is not obligatory in our

spiritual quest!! guru is the best person to adjudge the individual

capabilities of his pupils & his/her adhikAratva...We cannot start on our

own brahma jignAsa by reading mere printed versions of the same in multiple

languages...Personal interaction with a shrOtrIya & brahmanishTa guru is a

must to know the vEdAnta maThiThArtha jnAna (vEdAnta vAkya janita

jnAna)...where to find that guru?? is a different issue altogether...

 

 

Saying goes shAstrajnOpi svAtantryENa brahma jnAnAnvEshaNaM *na

kuryAt*..*ityEtat gurumEva ityavadhAraNAM...(I forgot the reference

here...Sunder prabhuji any help??!!) Here advice is that one may be a big

scholar in scriptures, but he/she should not do brahma jignAsa on his/her

own...it has to be done through guru only....That is the reason why

shankara emphasizes the importance of traditional teachings & bonafide

tradition..If we start our own studies with the printed study material

without the help of the guru, there is every possibility that we may fail

to grasp the *knowledge* of the shAstra-s in its entireity...To gain that

*IshvarAnugraha (god's grace) and AchAryOpadEsha is must...shvEtAshvEtara

shruti says : yasya dEvE parA bhaktiH yaThA dEvE taThA gurau..tasyaitE

kaThitA hyarThAH prakAshantE mahAtmanaH...

 

 

just on the lighter note : brahma jignAsa is not like a correspondence

course to say only study material would suffice to successfully get

through the exams:-))

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

IMO - The reason why most of the enlightened folks had a " living guru "

because they were enlightened in the fist place and did not wish to

have a possibility of gaining an " ego " they they became enlightened

without the help of " a guru " per say. That way they can remain humble

by attribute the knowledge to their respective guru's and avoid the

pitfall of ego.

 

j~naaneshvara warns the [practitioners of yoga in clear terms that they

must avoid building an house of ego. (j~naaneshvarii 2.311)

 

jayaate.n abhyaasaacii gharaTii | yamaniyamaa.ncii taaTii | je manaate

sadda muTii | dharuruuni ahaati ||

 

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " ymoharir " <ymoharir wrote:

>

> IMO - The reason why most of the enlightened folks had a " living

> guru " because they were enlightened in the fist place and did not

> wish to have a possibility of gaining an " ego " they they became

> enlightened without the help of " a guru " per say. That way they

> can remain humble by attribute the knowledge to their respective

> guru's and avoid the pitfall of ego.

 

Hari OM!

 

Pranam.

 

This is not to differ or disagree, but to clarify my own thinking,

by seeing if there are any holes in it.

 

If one is already enlightened, I am not sure why (s)he would have

a problem or pitfall with " ego " in the first place. Also, humility

doesn't seem like a policy adopted artificially by enlightened ones,

but a natural expression of seeing clearly the immense magnanimity of

creator and creation.

 

I like the word " enlightened " , because it has " light " in it!

Light is a fascinating phenomena both in physics and spirituality.

Nothing is seen without it, and nothing is needed to show itself.

May be a weak but still relevant analogy to Self. In the " light "

of Self or consciousness all things are known, while it itself

is self-evident.

 

Only way to know about why enlightened beings had or did not have a

living guru, is to become one. Until then, it may be just another

speculation.

----

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

The answer to this is to even abort any possibility for gaining " ego "

that is all.

 

vighnastasya na jaayate.

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

I have not read Sanskrit scriptures. But all through the life I have a

feeling that some higher power has been guiding my destiny though apparently

I have been functioning applying my free will in all the conscious actions.

Whenever I observed the behaviour of others both good and bad I always felt

that there was no conscious individual functioning from the person.

Something is happening as if it is pre programmed. If I was drawn to the

teachings of Ramana I feel that there was no effort from my side in that. I

cannot attribute that- reading about him and hearing about him were the

reasons for my coming into the fold of Advaita as many who were in similar

situation did not bother to go beyond the readings. I do not think that in

pursuing advaita and coming in to the folding of teachings greats like

Ramana I am fortunate and who do not do so are unfortunate. Some how a

feeling that there is no separate individual who is functioning from within

but the same force functioning everywhere is working within me also. That is

why I am more attracted to the surrender concept. I feel like surrendering

to that higher power (about which or logic of its functioning, I feel, is

beyond my mind- created cannot know the creator) I do not also tend to

attribute all this to karma or past effort in past life etc as there was no

individual functioning and there must have been a time when one was pure

before one was tossed in to the chain of these births. If I am identifying

with my body and as such I am not a realised one (as many enlightened

declared that out of ignorance we identify ourselves with the body and

thereby assume responsibility for all our actions)- this identification is

not a thing done by me consciously. Thus this so called ignorance is caused

by some higher power and that Higher power at its Will will free me from

that ignorance. Coming into the fold of Ramana is not my action. If a living

guru were destined for me He would guide me to Him if necessary. Till such

time I continue to exercise my free will doing whatever I consider I best-be

it meditation, japa, remaining 'still' floating in consciousness etc and

other actions in material life till the Higher power take me to the state

which the scriptures call Realisation. Till such time I accept whatever that

results from my free actions as His prasad. I could accept it as His prasad

as I sincerely believe that the so-called free actions of mine are only

apparently free and not really mine. I derive strength from what Ramana

said. Your head is in tiger's mouth and no escape from reaching that State-

But when? -I will wait for His call- as again Ramana said - It is like a

travel in 1st class, as the conductor would wake you up on reaching your

station.

 

Ramana Sarma

 

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Srinivas Nagulapalli <srini_nagul

wrote:

 

> advaitin <advaitin%40>,

> " ymoharir " <ymoharir wrote:

> >

> > IMO - The reason why most of the enlightened folks had a " living

> > guru " because they were enlightened in the fist place and did not

> > wish to have a possibility of gaining an " ego " they they became

> > enlightened without the help of " a guru " per say. That way they

> > can remain humble by attribute the knowledge to their respective

> > guru's and avoid the pitfall of ego.

>

> Hari OM!

>

> Pranam.

>

> This is not to differ or disagree, but to clarify my own thinking,

> by seeing if there are any holes in it.

>

> If one is already enlightened, I am not sure why (s)he would have

> a problem or pitfall with " ego " in the first place. Also, humility

> doesn't seem like a policy adopted artificially by enlightened ones,

> but a natural expression of seeing clearly the immense magnanimity of

> creator and creation.

>

> I like the word " enlightened " , because it has " light " in it!

> Light is a fascinating phenomena both in physics and spirituality.

> Nothing is seen without it, and nothing is needed to show itself.

> May be a weak but still relevant analogy to Self. In the " light "

> of Self or consciousness all things are known, while it itself

> is self-evident.

>

> Only way to know about why enlightened beings had or did not have a

> living guru, is to become one. Until then, it may be just another

> speculation.

> ----

> Hari OM!

> -Srinivas

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Richard,

 

Necessary...no.

Helpful...yes.

 

Namaste,

 

~ Eric Putkonen

http://www.awaken2life.org

 

advaitin , " Richard " <richarkar wrote:

>

> Hello group,

>

> I was wondering if there is a necessity for being in the presence

of a

> living guru for the realizing of moksha?

>

> Thanks in advance for any replies.

>

> Best wishes,

> Richard

>

[Guest guest]

Namaskar, someone said:

" " If we start our own studies with the printed study material

without the help of the guru, there is every possibility that we may

fail to grasp the *knowledge* of the shAstra-s in its entireity " "

 

This totally depends on what study material? Also pure reading from

printed texts is surely not equivalent to jnana-yoga, but if that

reading is combined with devotion, meditation and surrendor to the Self

then it does lead to liberation.

If the speech and writing are the same then both the listener and the

reader are exposed to the same knowledge.

such is the logic.

 

Pranams.

[Guest guest]

From : H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

 

advaitin , " Akshay Chawla " <theadvaita wrote:

>If the speech and writing are the same then both the listener and the

> reader are exposed to the same knowledge.

> such is the logic.

 

Dear Sri Akshay Chawala,

 

Listener and reader are exposed to the same knowledge.

But, there is the difference :

Reader knows about Atman.

Listener knows Atman.

That is the difference and what a difference it is!

Logic is one thing;

but what is in reality is another thing.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Eric Putkonen " <eputkonen wrote:

>

> Hi Richard,

>

> Necessary...no.

> Helpful...yes.

>

> Namaste,

>

> ~ Eric Putkonen

> http://www.awaken2life.org

 

 

So we meet again friend.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Mouna " <solracartist wrote:

>

> " Richard " <richarkar@> wrote:

> >

> > I was wondering if there is a necessity for being in the presence of

> a living guru for the realizing of moksha?

>

> Dear Richard:

>

> The question is phrased in a very peculiar way...

 

Hi Mouna,

 

Maybe that's because I am a very peculiar person.

 

Actually it wasn't phrased too well but I was trying to convey the

already-ness of moksha which has yet to be realized.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145

wrote:

 

> Listener and reader are exposed to the same knowledge.

> But, there is the difference :

> Reader knows about Atman.

> Listener knows Atman.

> That is the difference and what a difference it is!

> Logic is one thing;

> but what is in reality is another thing.

 

Hari OM!

 

Pranam.

 

We seem to only read, not listen to, advantages of listening on

this group! We all seem to value reading so much to make such

listening-free discussions even a possibility.

 

May be once we reach destination, it may not matter much by which

route we got there. Once message reaches us safely, it may not

matter much, if it came through reading or listening or both.

 

Like in any practical thing, the difficulty may not be so much in

knowing, but in abiding what we know. Knowing physical exercises,

balance of mind and concentration (at levels of body, mind,

intellect) is one thing, but practising them is another. So too,

may be, the abidance in Self which is far subtler than body, mind

and intellect.

 

They say " guru saakshaat parabrahma " - guru is truly Lord Himself.

Endless may be His ways to teach and reach our hearts- using words

or silence, showing outside or just revealing inside.

-------------------

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

I am of the opinion that 'Guru' is necessary but not sufficient. Help

is inevitable whether we take it with humility or pretend to show our

resistence with arrogance! Guru or Grace is always available and our

problem is not to acknowledge either one of them. The Sanskrit saying

that " Matha, Pitha Guru Deivam (mother, father, Teacher and Divine) "

provides necessary clues to understand the subtle essence of human

existence and divine realization.

 

human birth is divine

role of mother and father is divine

mother and father also become guru

Our first lesson at time of birth is survival

The entire life is a learning process for divine realization.

Divine is present in all forms known and unknown

 

For Divine realization, mother, father and Guru plays important roles

but realization goes beyond mother, father and Guru and all notions

including mother, father and Guru needs to be discarded.

 

How do I jump over a 6 foot wooden fence? It can be done many ways and

each of us will adopt a method. We can sit over a horse (Guru) to jump

over. But not everyone who sits over the horse will be able to jump

over it. Some horses may not be suitable and some of us are not

suitable for the horse!

 

With my regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

> advaitin , " Eric Putkonen " <eputkonen@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Richard,

> >

> > Necessary...no.

> > Helpful...yes.

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > ~ Eric Putkonen

[Guest guest]

From : H.N. Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , " Srinivas Nagulapalli "

<srini_nagul wrote:

>Like in any practical thing, the difficulty may not be so much in

> knowing, but in abiding what we know. Knowing physical exercises,

> balance of mind and concentration (at levels of body, mind,

> intellect) is one thing, but practising them is another. So too,

> may be, the abidance in Self which is far subtler than body, mind

> and intellect.

 

Dear Sri Srinivas Nagulapalli,

 

In Vedantic parlance, TO KNOW means TO BE.

 

Upanishads and Sri Shankara have used the word 'Know'In that sense

only. I have used the word 'know' in 'knows Atman " since that was how

my Gurudev taught me.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

[Guest guest]

From : H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145 wrote:

>

> From : H.N. Sreenivasa Murthy

> Pranams to all.

>

>

>

> Dear Sri Srinivas Nagulapalli,

>

> In Vedantic parlance, TO KNOW means TO BE.

>

> Upanishads and Sri Shankara have used the word 'Know'In that sense

> only. I have used the word 'know' in 'knows Atman " since that was how

> my Gurudev taught me.

>

> With warm and respectful regards,

> Sreenivasa Murthy.

 

Dear Sri Srinivas Nagulapalli,

The sentence " I have used the word 'know' in 'knows Atman " since

that was how my Gurudev taught me. " in my previous posting should read

as " I have used the word 'know' in 'knows Atman' in the above stated

sense only since that was how my Gurudev taught me. "

The error is regretted.

A reader will become a mantravit and a True Listener will

become Atmavit.

 

With respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

 

 

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Srinivasa Murthy Ji,

 

In your message in responese to mine:

 

>Listener and reader are exposed to the same knowledge.

>But, there is the difference :

>Reader knows about Atman.

>Listener knows Atman.

>That is the difference and what a difference it is!

>Logic is one thing;

>but what is in reality is another thing.

 

Well, actually in my last message i had also stated: " .....but if that

reading is combined with devotion, meditation and surrendor to the

Self then it does lead to liberation. " Which meanse reader becomes a

listener on having combined reading with devotion & surrendor.

 

I agree with you on the point 'reader only knows about atman'

I would only like to add that if reader or anybody practices what

he/she knows about atman then he/she shall 'know atman' like the

listener.

Again this is logic or in better words- my belief/interpretation,

reality may be different. On this subject i'll only say more once i

get closer to reality.

Thanks,

regards,

Namaste.