Some clarification

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dr. Shyamji.

 

Kindly see within .

 

> My apologies if there was a question from you that I left

unanswered - could you please reiterate the exact

question/clarification, and I shall do my best to reply.

 

[MN: No need to apologise. We are all busy. I can very well imagine

the situation of one in the medical profession - that too in the most

impersonal US. The post # is 43225. Please take your time.]

____________________

 

 

> There is no question of me not linking the term Grace - it is a

wonderful term and I have written on it or about it at length. I have

never, in this context, heard the term Given (with a capital G)

before but perhaps you mean it in the same sense as Grace.

 

[MN: That capitalization is mine. I have borrowed the term from

none other than Sw. Dayananda Saraswatiji. He uses the word often in

order to drive home the point of how fortunate we are with the

circumstances we are in.]

_______________

>  

> The problem is not with usage of the term but with using that term

to get away from the illogical inconsistency in your position of how

a jnAni is able to teach or write bhashyas. You write - " this is

something that Shankara himself teaches " - my point is - is this

teaching, which is of course in vyavahara alone, a product of our

collective adhyAsa or is this teaching stemming from Him, as a living

entity, established in the knowledge aham Brahmasmi, and

established as a Knower of Truth, and yet fully able to make use of

an individualized set of upAdhis to teach? Please clarify.

 

[MN: There is no illogical inconsistency. Now to " Shankara as a

living entity, established in the knowledge aham brahmasmi and

established as a Knower of Truth " . If you won't accuse me of

irreverence, let me look into the 'logic' of your description.

Living entity is ok, because I can apprehend a BMI. But, am I

qualified to confirm the rest of the description? What qualification

would I need for that? I should myself know what it is like to be a

Knower of Truth established in Knowledge. I have only certain verses

from BG and, at my level of incompetence, I am absolutely certain to

make mistakes. So, unless and until I reach Shankara's level, I would

be only parroting someone else's words or blabbering some

illogicality the veracity of which I myself am not sure of.]

 

[MN: Now let us suppose that due to some Grace I happen to acquire

the required qualifications, i.e. I become a Knower of Truth, then

that Truth being one without a second by definition, I can't be an

externality to it. That means I would be that very Truth, which

Shankara too is. Then, where is the question of my seeing Shankara

as a jnAni as separate from me. There is only jnAni without any

plurality and that is brahman. Any talk contrary to that is a

dilution of advaita.]

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Bhaskarji - PraNAmsFirst: Not sure about the absolutely ridiculous part of the post. It echoes the Krishna's teaching. Why is not the correct way? praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhujiHare KrishnaAgain prabhuji you have not answered my question with regard to your stand on the quotes provided by me...Instead you are telling Sri Shastri prabhuji & Jaishankara prabhuji's interpretations are OK with you...But you may please be noted neither of them sofar have commented on those quotes..I dont expect them to do that also..Because it is your goodself is more particular about showing everyone that my understanding of bhAshya vAkya is 'misinterpretation' I wanted you to provide correct way of interpretation...Yes, you have explained dream analogy, you have explained tiger example...but as you might have noticed you did that in your 'own way' without taking any help/support from shankara bhAshya nor cared to give correct interpretation of the bhAshya vAkya already quoted..What does it show?? I dont want to give my answer to this question prabhuji...You can think for yourself..Your ascertainment of my stand (Sri Narijis stand) with the support of later Acharya-s of advaita tradition to prove we are thinking outside tradition does not hold any water since I am more particular about shankara bhAshya.. & I have explained why I insist that and I have also quoted some prakaraNa-s (like aparOkshAnubhuti etc.) which goes against popular understanding of this forum (like jnAni's prArabdha karma etc.) With the support of that can I say those who are propagating jnAni's prArabhdha karma are going against advaita tradition in general & shankara in particular?? I doubt the authorship of aparOkshAnubhuti..but you prabhuji-s would have no hesitation to accept that it is indeed either from the pen of shankara or some Acharaya-s in shankara's unbroken lineage...What is your stand on that?? I dont think any prabhuji sofar atleast made an attempt to give their 'correct interpretation' of those verses which on the face reading seems to go against shankara's sUtra bhAshya in 4th adhyAya!! That is the ridiculous part I was talking about prabhuji...Selectrively quoting, effectively ignoring something else, singling out some names and trying to paint them as 'odd' men among socalled traditionalists :-)) I dont know what makes you to bring in Krishna's name here :-)) Krishna never ever entertain this type of ascertainment :-))Bhaskar: Instead of that you are again adopted a new means & trying to drag out me and Sri Nair prabhuji as hecklers!! This is quite unacceptable & not fair practice in this open forum prabhuji. KS: I have not adopted anything. You are saying I am interpreting differently from advaitic tradition. I am dismissing those arguments.bhaskar :Yes, you are dismissing those arguments (if you think so !!:-)) in your own way with the help of your own understanding of advaita vedanta...But as I told you I am not part with one's own understanding of advaita, I am interested ONLY in advaita vedanta as taught by shankara bhagavatpAda... You just tell me prabhuji...how many quotes you have given in support of your pet theories like..(a) jnAni has the individual set of Indriya-s and carries vyavahAra with the identification of that...(b) jnAni has only reflecting consciousness or upahita chaitanya or parichinna chaitanya as long as he is in his physical body & after the fall of BMI his merger with brahman will be considered as absoluteFirst prabhuji, you give me appropriate quotes for the above stand of yours & also give your correct interpretation...Then only it will be a fruitful discussion prabhuji..Otherwise it will be 'yours Vs mine' & I never mind even if you have the last laugh in this type of discussion :-)) But fact remains that conclusions have been arrived outside the shankara bhAshya & manufactured from the factory of one's own understanding :-))Sri KS prabhuji :BUT DO NOT CLAIM THAT YOURS IS AUTHENTIC ADVAITA AND OURS IS NOT – IF THAT IS WHAT YOUR POSITION IS. bhaskar :No need for capitals here prabhuji..Infact this is other way round...you are making your comments without the support of bhAshya & we are trying to share our understanding with all appropriate quotes from bhAshya...That says it all !! Sri KS prabhuji :And as regard to heckling part - Please read my post again and your statement again side by side and tell me what is acceptable and what is not. I never used Heckler word to any one nor the words like 'I am sick and tired of this' etc. and decided again what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.bhaskar :prabhuji if it is not your intention then there was no need for you to single out me & nair prabhuji & there was no need for you to mention our names in particular while taking support from later advaita Acharya's works to dismiss our claims...I dont want to drag this issue further & comment on it further...If I said anything in continution, I know it will be treated as " voice against moderator's observation, hence not acceptable " :-)) I dont want to be trapped like that prabhuji :-))KS prabhuji quoted : Such a liberated man, while he is not in Samaadhi, sees actions not opposed to knowledge taking place under momentum of past impressions (praarabda)- actions that have already begun to bear fruit, which he experiences through the physical body composed of flesh, blood, and other things; through the sense-organs affected by blindness, weakness, incapacity, etc and through his mind subject to hunger, thirst, grief, delusion, etc - yet he does not consider them as REAL, for he has already known their nothingness. As a man who is conscious that a magical performance is given, even though he sees, it does not consider it as real. (Is it not what we are presenting- my comment)bhaskar :Then what is your observation kindly be specific & let us know in what way the author of vedanta sAra is deviating from your presentation...I know the sentence 'while he is not in samAdhi' easily shows that the author is insisting here mind still state like nirvikalpa samAdhi & jnAni's vyavahAra here what he is explaining is the result of that mysterious state...If that is not your understanding then what makes you to quote this text as an authority?? kindly let the readers know that..Sri KS prabhuji quoted :A shruti statement is quoted in support of the above. Witness such shruti passages as: though he has eyes he is as one without eyes: though he possessed of ears, he is he one without ears " , etc.bhaskar :Yes this is what we are insisting ever since this thread started:-)) No need to mention, above shruti quote outrightly rejects Sri Sadananda prabhuji's pet theories such as jnAni's individualized set of indriya-s & compartmentalized chaitanya in that etc. :-))Sri KS prabhuji :THIS IS THE ADIVATIC POSTION AS HANDED DOWN BY SHANKARA AND HIS SUBSEQUENT ACCRYAAS - YOU CANNOT DENY OR DISMISS THAT. bhaskar :Again no need for capitals here prabhuji..Am I disturbing your tranquility prabhuji?? If I quote aparOkshAnubhuti & said the same thing what is your reply?? (infact I dont do that :-)) I never ever dismiss the contributions of later Acharya's...But at the same time I've the strong conviction that for my understanding of advaita shankara's authentic works on prasthAna traya is more than enough...Perhaps, you might not be aware how these vyAkhyAnakAra-s quarrelled among themselves while propagating their understanding of shankara vedanta..Anyway, let us leave it, not a right time for the discussion...Sri KS prabhuji :You are referring to B.Su. bhaashya - even if I provide you will again give your interpretation - As just now you are responding to Michaelji. You will insists on yours with some more bhaashya statements in support which we have again correctly interpret. bhaskar :How many times you did this correction job on my quotes?? you let me know prabhuji :-)) AFAIK, not even once!! So, your observation is ONLY in statement and not a practical effort prabhuji...We can make 101 general comments like above prabhuji..but truth ( or correct interpretation :--) sits far away from these type shallow statements is it not prabhuji?? Sri KS prabhuji :Bhaskar –Let us face it - the fundamental problem lies in the muula avidya and maayaa and adyhaasa aspect - is it not where your parama guru differs from other post Shankara tradition? bhaskar :My paramaguruji has explained in a comprehensive way why & how this mUlAvidyA theory, as interpreted by later vyAkhyAnakAra-s go against mUla bhAshya..So problem is not with mere usage of words like mUlAvidyA, kAraNAvidya etc. the contextual interpretation of the same while explaining the shankara bhAshya!! Anyway, this is a different matter altogether...Sri KS prabhuji :Let us pose a question - does ignorance create the world or maaya creates the world and are maaya and avidyaa are exactly identical - Does world can be seen as vibuuti without ignorance - or if ignorance goes away – what exactly goes away – world or ignorance of the world - All the interpretations differ because of the stand one takes - is it Not. This is the Fundamental issue that differs who your interpretation differs from rest of the Shankarachaaryas of advaitic tradition - is this not so? I am trying to zero-in the problem.bhaskar :I dont know how this question relevant to the context of this discussion...Anyway since you are asking I am bound to answer it...Ignorance & mAya is not identical as per my understadning of vedanta...avidyA & adhyAsa are synonyms...what goes after the dawn of knowledge?? whether world or ignorance of the world?? infact nothing goes nothing comes afresh...(jnApakaM hi shAstraM na tu kArakaM) jnAna can only reveal what is already available that is ever shining Atman without the dirt of kArya-kAraNatva..So, knowledge eradicates the wrong notion that there was ignorance & world etc. it will be ONE ONLY always without second...But again, this answer does not going to help in anyway to zero-in the problem that we are facing in this thread..i.e. jnAni's separate identity with indriya-s, his reflected consciousness etc.. Without digressing from this core subject, prabhuji shall we continue this discussion ??!!Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Ramachandra prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Sorry I was away from the town for the past 5-6 days & had been to some village with my Veda guruji to do durga saptashati pArAyaNa & chandi hOma in a mArikAmba temple...Hence the delay in reply :

Sri Rama prabhuji :

Hence we have different understanding of what is being stated in the scriptures. Given this fact, there is no easy way of coming to any meaningful

resolutions with intellectual discussions by repeatedly quoting with our own interpretations.

bhaskar :

No problem prabhuji, kindly first atleast quote the scriptures & give your own interpretation..In one of your posts, you particularly said something about jnAni's shareera traya (stUla, sUkshma & kAraNa) and its mergence in three different prapancha-s etc. and you claimed that it is there in the scripture...Kindly quote that scripture & if possible bhAshya vAkya with your interpretation..we are all here to learn from shruti & Acharya upadesha..I think it is better to learn this way instead of going by one's own understanding of advaita vedanta.

Sri Rama prabhuji :

I want your honest opinion regarding your background, scholarship and training in comparison to the scholarship of Swami

Paramarthanandaji's background, scholarship and training.

bhaskar :

It is really amusing to see this type of questioning / expectations from your goodself prabhuji...Ofcourse I am an amateur vedantin with full belief in reality in duality:-)) Anyway I have noticed the participants who are there in this list also not anyway better than me :-)) So, I have the 'like-minded' prabhuji-s with me..your question is equally applicable to them also prabhuji :-)) I dont know anything about Swami paramArthananda Swamiji, his background, his scholarship, his disciples, his works and his training in traditional circle etc. etc. I dont know in what way it is going to help me either :-)) So, prabhuji Swamy paramArthananda swamiji's backgroud is quite irrelevant for an ordinary mortal like me prabhuji...But I am failed to understand your intention behind this surprising question :-))

Sri Ramachandra prabhuji :

I know that you have been posting messages in advaita-L list and you greatly respect the scholarship of Sri Vidyasankar Sunderasan

bhaskar :

Yes, I greatly respect him & infact he is one of my cybernet guruji-s..On & off the list we have been exchanged lot of mails & he is the one who has personally showed interest in my spiritual upliftment...Even with him also I have discussed somany issues (like patanjala yoga in advaita, authorship of vivekachudamani, contents of vivekachudamani, the role of nirvikalpa samAdhi in advaita etc. etc.)...He never ever take anything personally and whenever his precious time permits he obliged with replies & clarifications etc.. Infact, I myself drawn his attention to this ongoing discussion & asked his clarification...He has not shown much interest in that...anyway let us leave it...Your quote of that web page does not say anything about individuality of the jnAni & has never talked about indriya-s of the jnAni & his bordered chaitanya...OTOH, it clearly denies the individual nature of the jnAni...Anyway, it is not fair on our part to discuss this article without the participation of the author...He has not shown any willingness to participate in this type of discussion..

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

PS : I think I've to write some more mails today itself prabhuji, as I am again going out of station on the event of mahA shivarAtri for the next four days I'll not be able to write anything...

[Guest guest]

Namaste to all.

The following extracts from the bhAshya show that, according to Shri

Shankara, prArabdha karma continues even after realization till it

is exhausted by being experienced.

Humble praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Would it be possible for your goodself to share your view points on the verses of aparOkshAnubhuti quoted by Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji..Since you have quoted bhAshya vAkya-s to substantiate jnAni's prArabhdha...It would be beneficial to other readers why the author of this prakaraNa says it otherway...Since you are all believe that it is the prakaraNa grantha of Sri shankaracharya...would you please explain me how he himself refuted the theory of jnAni's prArabhdha karma in this prakaraNa grantha when he talks in its favour in prasthAna trayi bhAshya?? how can we reconcile it?? how can we interpret it correctly without giving inconsistency tag to shankara's different works?? Kindly have a look into my request prabhuji.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

The teachings of Shankara, Ramana et al deal with Truth. They are

not " Truth " per se. No disrespect, irreverence or blasphemy meant -

please. When Truth is realized, these teachings including the

teachers are sublated. What is sublated in realization is adhyAsa

and the vyAvahAra erected by it. The teachers and teachings are

within that vyavahAra. This is something Shankara himself has taught

us. He hadn't excluded himself from that sublation, had he?

praNAms Sri MN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

That is really bold & beautiful observation prabhuji..A hard core reality of nondual advaita vedanta....Yes, any nAma, rUpa vikAra & identification with that is adhyAsa..if anybody would have dared to ask shankara 'who are you?? shankara would have definitely answered him like ajaM, nirvikalpam, nirAkAraM, ekaM, nirAnandamAnanda advaita poorNam...he never ever wished to give answer in such a manner that gives us the impression that he is jnAni, the beholder of jnAna...bAdhite cha shAreerAtmatve tadAshrayaH samasthaH svAbhAvikO vyavahArO bAdhitO bhavati...is the sublation 'effect' shankara gives in sUtra bhAshya...We should understand nothing more & nothing less than it...When shruti itself says veda is not veda in that state...where is the question of veda/vedanta guru's reality in paramArtha...if at all there is difference between veda, guru, shishya, teaching, etc. it will be their in avidyA vyavahAra only where duality is reality which controls this vyavahAra...Whereas in paramArtha it is ekaM, anantaM, akhandaM, adviteeyaM..

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> Namaste to all.

> The following extracts from the bhAshya show that, according to

Shri

> Shankara, prArabdha karma continues even after realization till it

> is exhausted by being experienced.

>

>

> Humble praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

>

>

> Hare Krishna

>

>

> Would it be possible for your goodself to share your view points

on the

> verses of aparOkshAnubhuti quoted by Sri Madathil Nair

prabhuji..Since you

> have quoted bhAshya vAkya-s to substantiate jnAni's

prArabhdha...It would

> be beneficial to other readers why the author of this prakaraNa

says it

> otherway...Since you are all believe that it is the prakaraNa

grantha of

> Sri shankaracharya...would you please explain me how he himself

refuted the

> theory of jnAni's prArabhdha karma in this prakaraNa grantha when

he talks

> in its favour in prasthAna trayi bhAshya?? how can we reconcile

it?? how

> can we interpret it correctly without giving inconsistency tag to

> shankara's different works??

>

>

> Kindly have a look into my request prabhuji.

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

 

Dear Bhaskar-ji,

I believe I have already explained it in my last post by saying that

as far as the jnani is concerned, prarabdha is as good as non-

existent. This aspect is stressed in Aparokshanubhuti. Obviously

Aparokshanubhuti cannot contradict Shankara and so we have to

reconcile the two. If you interpret Aparokshanubhuti in any other

way, you have to reject Shankara's statements, which I suppose you

will not do. Can you give any other meaning for Shankara's

statements? If so, I would like to hear it.I am always ready to

learn.

Sastri

[Guest guest]

Bhaskarji - PraNAms. Since you wanted Shankara Bhaashya and Shree Sastriji has

provided enough of these.

From my point the discussion ended unless you have differet interpretation for

them.

As for as I am concerned the discussion ended - I need to concentrate on

something more useful for me.

 

Let me say in the final analysis.

 

'You are' abosolutely true. God bless you.

 

With sashTaga praNAms.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- On Fri, 2/20/09, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

 

Bhaskarji - PraNAms

 

First: Not sure about the absolutely ridiculous part of the post. It echoes the

Krishna's teaching. Why is not the correct way?

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Again prabhuji you have not answered my question with regard to your stand on

the quotes provided by me...

[Guest guest]

PranAms Bhaskar-ji

 

"If someone asked Shankara who are you?..Shankara would have answered......?"

 

Prabhuji - Would Shankara have needed ears to hear such a question prabhu-ji? and a mind to process? and an intellect to decide on the answer? Would he, a jnAni, be operating a individualized set of upadhis? Will his answers be a projection of the avidya of the person asking such a question? If so will the answer have any validity?

 

Can I please invite you to comment without once again completely skirting the issue? Avoiding giving a cogent explanation as to how a paramajnAni such as Bhagwan Shankara, minus mind, minus upadhis, was able to write his bhashyas [that you very correctly lay so much emphasis on], only serves to expose the loopholes in logic that any hypothesis not based on tradition will find itself very quickly warped in.

 

Hari OM

Shyam

 

--- On Fri, 2/20/09, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yrRe: Re: Some clarificationadvaitin Date: Friday, February 20, 2009, 5:58 AM

 

 

 

 

Hare Krishna That is really bold & beautiful observation prabhuji..A hard core reality of nondual advaita vedanta....Yes, any nAma, rUpa vikAra & identification with that is adhyAsa..if anybody would have dared to ask shankara 'who are you?? shankara would have definitely answered him like ajaM, nirvikalpam, nirAkAraM, ekaM, nirAnandamAnanda advaita poorNam...he never ever wished to give answer in such a manner that gives us the impression that he is jnAni, the beholder of jnAna...bAdhite cha shAreerAtmatve tadAshrayaH samasthaH svAbhAvikO vyavahArO bAdhitO bhavati...is the sublation 'effect' shankara gives in sUtra bhAshya...We should understand nothing more & nothing less than it...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!! bhaskar

 

 

Change settings via the Web ( ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Terms of Use | Un

 

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

12

New Members

 

1

New Polls

 

2

New FilesVisit Your Group

 

 

 

Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

 

Group Charity

California Pet

Rescue: Furry

Friends Rescue

 

Y! Messenger

Want a quick chat?

Chat over IM with

group members.

..

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

If I am permitted to put in my two cents, Shankara has granted us his

reconciling verdict in Aparokshanubhuti itself as follows:

 

" 97. The body also being within the phenomenal world (and therefore

unreal), how could Prarabdha exist ? It is, therefore, for the

understanding of the ignorant alone that the Shruti speaks of

Prarabdha. "

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

 

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

 

> Obviously

> Aparokshanubhuti cannot contradict Shankara and so we have to

> reconcile the two. If you interpret Aparokshanubhuti in any other

> way, you have to reject Shankara's statements, which I suppose you

> will not do. Can you give any other meaning for Shankara's

> statements? If so, I would like to hear it.I am always ready to

> learn.