The Enlightened Eminently Engage in Empirical Endeavours

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Mounaji:

 

The reason that Subbuji doesn't want to debate is quite simple. As

for as I know that he doesn't want you or anyone else take his text

as the SCRIPTURE. He wants all of us take some time to read and

digest the entire contents of his message with reflections upon

Truth.

 

He has taken quite a bit of time to do a thorough research on the

subject matter and provided his understanding of what he has learnt.

He has left this list couple of years back because he wanted to stay

away from debating. We should respect his wishes.

 

The Sanskrit word Mananam translates as " Reflections upon Truth. "

Mananam is the spiritual practice of reflecting upon the teachings of

the scriptures. By deeply thinking upon the words of the scriptures

and through logical reasoning, we can clear the mind of its

restlessness and come to recognize our true nature. We should also

need to develop an attitude to stop debating and instead focusing on

controlling and purifying our mind. Chinmaya Mission has a

publication with the title " Mananam " which contain many articles with

insights on how to recognize our true nature.

 

Here are couple of articles that came in Mananam, the first by Swami

Tejomayanandaji and the second by Swami Chinmayanandaji. (they are

not directly related to the subject matter of discussion but you can

gain a lot by reading them.

 

http://www.chinmaya-chicago.org/mananam/RefArtSpiritualPerfection.pdf

 

http://www.chinmaya-chicago.org/mananam/RefArtSpiritualDiary.pdf

 

With my warm regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: Since Subbuji has sent to me his message with the note, I have

the responsibility to convey his wishes. I am not writing to you as a

moderator but only as a friend.

 

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

>

> With all due respect, I have a question.

> When a text is presented in a list like ours (so-called discussion

list)

> with the disclaimer that the author is not interested in debating,

> doesn't it jeopardizes the very concept of Mananam?

> Is the point of view of this text to be taken as Scripture?

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

I want to share the message of Sri Vidyasankar to Subbuji which will be useful for the members.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

----- Forwarded Message ----"Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (GE Infra, Water)" <vidyasankar.sundaresanWednesday, February 25, 2009 9:17:15 AMRE: Here is the Attachment!!

 

 

My dear Sri Subrahmanian,

 

You have effectively highlighted the most important issue that seemed to get lost in all the discussions, namely the sadyomukta vis-a-vis the jIvanmukta. There is scope for both in the SAstra and in the bhAshya-s. If not for the presence of jIvanmukta-s amongst us, whom would we get any jnAna from? You have also rightly pointed out the statements made from the tattva dRshTi and the vyavahAra dRshTi in all the texts.

 

I would just like to point out, in the last page, there is really no difference between a jnAni continuing to appear in a body till the exhaustion of prArabdha and a jnAni going into an irreversible state of samAdhi. After all, it may the prArabdha of one jnAni to never come back, even seemingly, into vyavahAra, and we call that "samAdhi", while it may be the prArabdha of another to seemingly do otherwise.

 

Ultimately, all is resolved in silence, even after breaking it a little, in order to teach, like the guru, bAdhva, did with bAshkali :-)

 

With namaskarams to you and all the esteemed people on the addressee list,

Vidyasankar

 

 

V Subrahmanian [subrahmanian_v] Wednesday, February 25, 2009 5:56 AM

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " advaitins " <advaitins wrote:

 

Firstly, my heartfelt thanks to SrI Subramaniam-ji and SrI Ram

Chandran-ji.

 

What an article! I don't know who Subramaniam-ji is, but when I was

reading his article, I felt as if some advaita AchArya was speaking,

like a vidyAraNya or an adhvarIndra or a sureSvarAchArya or a Sankara

himself!

 

May be, because his conclusion was in favor of my understanding of

advaita or because of my faith in Adi Sankara's advaita sampradAya, I

felt his words as shattering the fancies of Pseudo-advaita.

 

Reading the works of sampradAyavit(s) is always enlightening and is

even easy to grasp probably because they profess not just the

erudition or the depth of reasoning but also that touch of realization

as passed on to them from the real masters all through the lineage.

 

While speaking about sampradAyavits, one quote of Swami Vivekananda

comes to my mind which I feel, fits the description of a

sampradAyavit. Swamiji once said:

 

##Take up one idea. Make that one idea your life — think of it, dream

of it, live on that idea. Let the brain, muscles, nerves, every part

of your body, be full of that idea, and just leave every other idea

alone. This is the way to success, and this is the way great spiritual

giants are produced. Others are mere talking machines. If we really

want to be blessed, and make others blessed, we must go deeper.##

[uNQUOTE]

 

In the same lecture he also says,

 

##When one begins to concentrate, the dropping of a pin will seem like

a thunderbolt going through the brain. As the organs get finer, the

perceptions get finer. These are the stages through which we have to

pass, and all those who persevere will succeed. Give up all

argumentation and other distractions. Is there anything in dry

intellectual jargon? It only throws the mind off its balance and

disturbs it. Things of subtler planes have to be realised. Will

talking do that? So give up all vain talk. Read only those books which

have been written by persons who have had realisation.##

 

Source:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivek

ananda/Volume_1/Raja-Yoga/Pratyahara_And_Dharana

 

 

Ever yours in the Lord,

 

Sampath ~

 

!! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Advaitins,

Q: You are a point of light in the world. Not everybody is.

M: There is absolutely no difference between me and others except in my knowing myself as I am. I am all. I know it for certain and you do not.

Q: So we differ all the same.

M: No, we do not. The difference is only in the mind and temporary. I was like you, you will be like me.

(from ‘I am That’, section 31)

Subbu-ji’s paper is a good collection of all the sources. For ink and paper friendly printing copy and paste into a Word document in Times New Roman 11 point.

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

I am a little confused about a specific passage in Sri Subbuji's

presentation, at the very start.

>

It is the conclusion of Shankara in Gita verse 4.38:

//..By this the Lord means to say that that Knowledge alone which is

imparted by those who have realized the Truth – and no other

knowledge – can prove effective.//

 

The Gita version I have (Gambirananda's translation with Bhagavan

Sankara's Comment.) doesn't match the above quoted passage. Maybe

Bhagavan Sankara makes this conclusion in another commentary? Could

someone please redirect me to the right bashya?

>

Thanks in advance,

yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

>

Hari Om Mounaji, Pranaams!

 

Sw. Gambhirananda's translation will read: 'The considered view of

the Lord is that Knowledge imparted by those who have full

enlightenment becomes effective, not any other.

 

This is the translation of the portion :

 

ye samyak-darshinaH, taiH upadiShTaM jnAnaM kAryakShamaM bhavati na

itarat iti bhagavataH matam.

 

The point refers to the word idarat. (Neuter Accusative(2nd) case).

 

Sw. GambhIrAnandaji has given the translation without interpretation

as ' not any other' .

 

Shri. Subramanianji has rightly connected with the word jnAnam which

is also in the same case and interpreted as not any other knowledge.

 

Since the chapter compares jnAna(Knowledge-jnanayagna) with others

like dravyayajna, tapoyagna etc., the right interpretation would be

to interpret the other to mean other means like dravya yagna and all

and not other Knowledge. (After all, supreme Knowledge is one and

there is no other).

 

But the strange thing in the ongoing discussion is some interpret

other with jnAni and argue only jnAni should teach and if taught by

anybody else(interpreting other as person other than jnAni or any

other Knolwedge as known from any other source(a non-jnAni) it won't

be fruitful.

 

The whole chapter is about jnAna and hence if supremacy is given to

anyother thing that should be taken only as arthavAda.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

Mounaji - PraNAms

 

It is a typo - the actual sloka is 4-34 a quite famous sloka that is often

quoted. This sloka was discussed earlier by JaiShankarji and others.

 

Tat viddhi praNipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa|

upadesyanti te jnaanam jnaaninaH tatva darshinaH||

 

know that (absolute truth) by surrendering to the teacher with an attitude of

service and by inquiring through questioning - the first line is instruction to

student. The second line is somewhat of an instruction to the teacher who is

well established in Brahman - It is what is called aachaarya RiNa - the

obligation to his teacher - Krishna says if a deserving student is approached

properly, the jnaani who has the vision of reality will instruct that knowledge.

It is obligation on the teacher to teach for a qualified student since he was in

the past approached exactly in the same fashion his teacher who was kind enough

to teach him. In principle teacher's duty is over only when he imparts that

knowledge to the next generation. That is part of Vedic dharma - this aspect is

discussed in Tittiriya Upanishad too as part of shiikshaavalli. This is part of

sanaatana dharma which is now unfortunately translated as Hinduism - although it

is never considered as

ism. This dharma is passed on from a teacher to the student and is called

guruparampara starting from Lord Vishnu as he says in the 4th Chapter starting

from- imam vivasvante yogam .. I taught this to earlier to Sun .. etc.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- On Wed, 2/25/09, Mouna <maunna wrote:

 

 

Mouna <maunna

Re: The Enlightened Eminently Engage in Empirical Endeavours

advaitin

Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 5:14 PM

 

 

> It is the conclusion of Shankara in Gita verse 4.38:

> //..By this the Lord means to say that that Knowledge alone which is

> imparted by those who have realized the Truth – and no other

> knowledge – can prove effective.//

>

> In this verse the Lord teaches that the aspirant has to approach a

> Jnani, bow to him, serve him and pose questions on the Atman. If

> there was no BMI to a Jnani how can one implement the Lord's

> instruction?

 

The Gita version I have (Gambirananda' s translation with Bhagavan Sankara's

Comment.) doesn't match the above quoted passage.

Maybe Bhagavan Sankara makes this conclusion in another commentary?

Could someone please redirect me to the right bashya?

 

Thanks in advance,

yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

namaskAraH SrI Pranipata Chaitanya-ji,

 

When I read the title " Brahmachari " before your name, it reminded me

of SrI Vinayaka-ji from Ramakrishna Math who was active in this list

one year back. He must be now fully immersed in his sAdhanas, for

which purpose he has left these discussions. He was such a treasure

house of samyak jnAna, that I always learned a lot from him. Although

I have a chance to contact him now, I am restraining from doing that

as I feel I would be pulling him into the worldly matters and causing

unnecessary distractions by doing so.

 

It seems like you are also from Ramakrishna Mission. Accept my humble

prostrations to you. Jai Swami Vivekananda Maharaj!

 

I have some issues with what you wrote in your latest post,

 

You wrote:

 

But the strange thing in the ongoing discussion is some interpret

other with jnAni and argue only jnAni should teach and if taught by

anybody else(interpreting other as person other than jnAni or any

other Knolwedge as known from any other source(a non-jnAni) it won't

be fruitful.

[uNQUOTE]

 

## mahASaya, why is it a strange thing? Is it not just the same fact

that " one cannot realize without a Guru " , re-phrased? And when it is

true that one cannot realize without a Guru, we also need to define

the qualifications of a Guru. The above quoted gIta SlOka serves as an

authority on it. It is very clear and cannot at all be ruled out as

Eulogy.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda "

<paramahamsavivekananda wrote:

>

> namaskAraH SrI Pranipata Chaitanya-ji,

>

I have some issues with what you wrote in your latest post,

>

> You wrote:

>

> But the strange thing in the ongoing discussion is some interpret

> other with jnAni and argue only jnAni should teach and if taught by

> anybody else(interpreting other as person other than jnAni or any

> other Knolwedge as known from any other source(a non-jnAni) it

won't

> be fruitful.

> [uNQUOTE]

>

> ## mahASaya, why is it a strange thing?

 

Hari Om Shri Sampathji, Pranaams!

 

Yes Strange in that particular reference.

 

1. When the statement precedes is - sarvam karmAkhilam pArtha jnAne

parisamApyathi (all actions, O Partha, in totality, culminate in

Knowledge) and the instruction is viddhi(know it) to interpret and

give importance as to from whom it has to be learnt is out of reach.

 

2. The sambandha bAshya quotes - tat etam vishiShTaM jnAnam tarhi

kena prApyate iti ucyate - In that case, by what means is this highly

estimable Knowledge acquired? This is answer is being given.

 

Now if the answer is for kena the right conclusion will be

pranipAtena, pariprashnena, sevayA. Had the sambandha bAshya said it

is the answer for kasmAt - from whom then the interpretation giving

importance to teacher is valid.

 

3. shraddhAvAn labhate jnAnam, ye ajAnantaH anyebhyaH shrutvA

upAsate, te api atitaranti, AcAryavAn puruShaH veda are all artha

vAda only.

 

Even in his bAshya on the 'AcAryavAn puruShaH veda',the stress is on

the things to be done by the seeker.

 

 

> I do not think AchArya would say, " The considered view of the Lord

is

> an arthavAda " !?

 

I reiterate, if the word itarat is interpreted to mean none other

than jnAni which is not the intention of the word from its gramatical

usage, then such an interpretation would only be arthavAda.

 

> Ever yours in the Lord,

>

> Sampath ~

>

> !! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

>

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

 

I join with you and offer praNAms to Br. Vinayakaji. I do not belong

to Ramakrishna Mission.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

>

> That being said, I am a little confused about a specific passage

in Sri

> Subbuji's presentation, at the very start.

>

> > It is the conclusion of Shankara in Gita verse 4.38:

> > //..By this the Lord means to say that that Knowledge alone

which is

> > imparted by those who have realized the Truth – and no other

> > knowledge – can prove effective.//

> >

> > In this verse the Lord teaches that the aspirant has to approach

a

> > Jnani, bow to him, serve him and pose questions on the Atman. If

> > there was no BMI to a Jnani how can one implement the Lord's

> > instruction?

>

> The Gita version I have (Gambirananda's translation with Bhagavan

> Sankara's Comment.) doesn't match the above quoted passage.

> Maybe Bhagavan Sankara makes this conclusion in another commentary?

> Could someone please redirect me to the right bashya?

>

> Thanks in advance,

> yours in Bhagavan,

> Mouna

 

Dear Mouna-ji,

THe verse in question is Gita, 4.34- 4.38 is a typing mistake.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Dear Mouna-ji,

 

I believe you need to invent another id for yourself. I find you

intelligently vocal and immensely articulate.

 

I agree with you in toto. We have only points of view; jnAni

is 'view' itself. One has to be jnAni to understand what it is like

being jnAni. Till then, we have to accept what Nisargadatta Maharaj

said in the quote by Michaelji in 43825.

 

Thus, we have apparently contradictory statements made by Shankara,

Vidyaranya, Sureshwara et al and BG and the BhashyAs, over which we

have the liberty to quarrel endlessly and align ourselves to schools

of our choice. The paper under discussion has now laid bare to public

view, as never before, the chasm between Advaita per se and

institutional Advaita.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

>

> If you pay attention to Bhagavan Ramana and Nisargadatta you will

find

> that their " point of view " , actually, fluctuates between both of the

> so-called Schools 1 and 2.

> We can't nail down a Jnani to a particular point of view (am I

> contradicting myself?) for the same reasons that you are defending,

> meaning, a Jnani is much more and much less that our minds would

ever

> imagine.

> In vyavahara there are only points of view (how could it be

otherwise?)

> Jnanis... they are the " view " itself.

[Guest guest]

hare krishna, namaskaramsananthakoti namaskarams to a gnani that is respected shri.subbuji.this mail is to be preserved by everyone of this list and it is the final answer to all the debates on this subject.only shri.subbuji could write such a beutiful analysis and all the quotes for those interested. i am blessed to receive this mail and while reading, at the end there was such clarity and exhilaration that my eyes filled with tears is not an exageration or written for any publicity of my humbleself.i will be blessed to have the darshan of this great person .may lord krishna bless him with many more years to guide people like me in this list.baskaranr

 

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.

[Guest guest]

When a text is presented in a list like ours (so-called discussion list)

with the disclaimer that the author is not interested in debating,

doesn't it jeopardizes the very concept of Mananam?

Is the point of view of this text to be taken as Scripture?

praNAms Sri Mouna prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Yes, it seems this article of Sri Subbu prabhuji is as good as scripture in this list:-))...Because it has already attracted appreciatory remarks, tears from all corners of the list...I must confess here that I too want to wholeheartedly appreciate Sri Subbuji's efforts in this endeavour. Since the contents of this write-up have not been questioned by any of the prabhuji-s sofar (except Sri Nair prabhuji) & the author himself is not ready to entertain any subsequent discussion :-)) there cannot be any possibility of further jignAsa on this ultimatum / antya pramANa :-))...Anyway, the content of this article is not so friendly with my line of thinking :-)) (what to do that has been the case eversince this thread started :-))...I have to share my bits on it without expecting 'replies'/ clarification from the author :-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

SrI Pranipata Chaitanyaji,

praNAmaH,

 

You said:

 

I reiterate, if the word itarat is interpreted to mean none other than

jnAni which is not the intention of the word from its gramatical

usage, then such an interpretation would only be arthavAda.

[uNQUOTE]

 

You completely ignored these words I had written:

 

Is it not just the same fact that " one cannot realize without a Guru " ,

re-phrased? And when it is true that one cannot realize without a

Guru, we also need to define the qualifications of a Guru. The above

quoted gIta SlOka serves as an authority on it. It is very clear and

cannot at all be ruled out as Eulogy.

 

## pUrvamImAmsakas ignored upanishads calling them as arthavAda

because they could not see the upanishadic statements as facts and

they never applied them to their own lives.

 

But, in the above gIta SlOka, whatever AchArya has said, that Guru

must be completely enlightened is a plain fact and we all unanimously

agree on it. Since it is an established fact, we cannot call it

eulogy.

 

So, if you want to call it as eulogy, whatever the logic you may

resort to, you should be able to disprove these basic statements:

 

(1.) One needs a Guru to realize brahman

(2.) A Guru must be fully enlightened

 

If the above two statements cannot be disproved, the words of AchArya

that

 

//*The considered view of the Lord is that Knowledge imparted by those

who have *full enlightenment* becomes effective//

 

stands as an indisputable fact and cannot be called arthavAda.

 

 

## One more thing, I have a doubt. Is it proper to interpret some of

AchArya's words from his bhAshyas as arthavAda? It appears strange to

me. I believe, AchArya wrote bhAshyas to make things simpler and show

us what is a fact and what is a redundant exaggeration. Otherwise, we

would need someone to write bhAshya on Sankara bhAshya itself.

 

 

Ever yours in the Lord,

 

Sampath ~

 

!! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Shri Sampathji, Pranaams!

 

'brahmavit apnoti param'. AcAryaji explains by definition itself I.e. param as niratishayam it denoted Supreme Brahman. All other things will be aparam.

 

Similarly 'Guru' by its very definition can denote only Supreme Brahman. Any other thing is laghu.

 

In such a case does the word Guru require any additional adjectives.

 

Though brahman itself means supreme, we use the phrase Supreme-Brahman just out of love/respect. Not to differentiate it from other brahmans.

 

Similarly shrotriam, brahmaniShTham, varam are used in shruti/smriti out of love/respect. Not to differentiate from other gurus.

 

I will be cent percent agreeable if re-phrasing was done to add further respect/glory. But for fictitious argument sake....

 

Even as a vidhi-vAkya, gurum prApya nibodhaya(viddhi), attaining the Guru is to be done primarily but the primary importance is viddhi(know) which is the vidhi.

 

w.r.t. BG 4.34 the top most declaration is 'tat viddhi'. The means is 'pranipAtena, pariprashnena, sevayA'.

 

Lord do not even use the word prApya because as AcAryaji says in his bAshya on 'AcAryavAn puruShaH veda', kathamcit punya-adishayAt eva, kamcit sat-brahma-Atma-vidam, vimukta-bandhana-brahmiShThaM AsAdayati.

 

If we go on saying that one should reach a shrotiyam, brahmaniShTam only, I.e. search for Guru is of primary importance, it will induce to guru-shopping.

 

Now, coming to the current point of discussion, I have no disagreement with you or AcAryaji's vAkya that

 

//*The considered view of the Lord is that Knowledge imparted by those who have *full enlightenment* becomes effective//

 

But if the succeeding vAkya of AcAryaji ' not by other' is interpreted to mean that knowledge if taught by others will be ineffective, I may not agree.

 

It is like this. We agree with logicians in defining anumAna pramANa only on positive usage I.e. yatra yatra dhUmaH tatra tatra vahniH. Not with other I.e. yatra yatra na dhoomaH tatra tatra na vahniH. Because of the simple fact that when we declare brahman can be known as a cause of this universe using anumAna pramANa we cant even imagine phrasing yatra na brahma tatra na lokaH. Similarly in this case the negative definition will question the pramANatA of veda and svatantratA of brahman/Guru to come in any form and teach. (We have ample examples of teaching in the form of svan, ox, fire, etc.)

 

Hope you agree.

In Shri Guru Smriti,Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda "

<paramahamsavivekananda wrote:

 

Otherwise, we would need someone to write bhAshya on Sankara bhAshya

itself.

 

> Sampath ~

 

Hari Om Shri Sampathji, Pranaams!

 

Wiseacres dont need anything. Mediocres require works like

Anandagiriji's tikka, vArtikakArAs expositions, AcAryaji's exposition

of his paramaguru's kArika and even translations/commentaries on them

etc. to get a glimse of AcArya-hrdayam and also to reject self-

proclaimed misinterpretations. I am happy belonging to the second

group.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

SrI Pranipata chaitanyaji,

praNAmaH,

 

 

You wrote:

 

Similarly 'Guru' by its very definition can denote only Supreme

Brahman. Any other thing is laghu. In such a case does the word Guru

require any additional adjectives.

[/uNQUOTE]

 

So, you accept that Guru by the title itself is the one who is fully

enlightened.

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

 

You wrote:

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda "

<paramahamsavivekananda wrote:

> Guru because when you say, " Guru can come in any form and teach " ,

> you yourself accept that, whatever the form might be, it is only the

> fully enlightened guru coming to teach us.

 

 

> Sampath ~

 

Hari Om Shri Sampathji, Pranaams!!

 

A small correction.

 

Whatever the form might be, it is only the Supreme Brahman coming to

teach us.

 

The term un-enlightened Guru is like the term child of a barren

woman.

 

That is all.

 

If one keep on parroting 'Supreme may come in any form and teach' and

go on looking for a person(in human costume with localized BMI)...

All the best to him with prayers!!!

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya.

[Guest guest]

If one keep on parroting 'Supreme may come in any form and teach' and

go on looking for a person(in human costume with localized BMI)...

All the best to him with prayers!!!

 

praNAms Sri Chaitanya prabhuji

Hare Krishna

That is really well said prabhuji...Yes, lord said in geeta yada yadAhi dharmasya glAnirbhavati...tadAtmAnaM srujAmyahaM etc. But pity here is, we cannot think about jnAni beyond his localized BMI (as Sri Rajkumar Nair rightly pointed out) that is no need to mention our limited perception of A jnAni...If we think Krishna, as a jnAni, we cannot think beyond his localized body in black, his peacock feathered crown, flute etc. If we think about bhagavan ramaNa as a jnAni, we cannot think beyond his tall lean structure, beard smiling face...We the ajnAni-s always need some inert medium to recognise jnAna in a jnAni!!!

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar