Guest guest Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 Namaste: Since the message from Sri Vidyasankar is quite useful for members who have been following this thread, I am forwarding to the list. I want to thank Sri Vidya for taking his time to answer Sri Bhaskarji's recent message. I agree with the following conclusive statement of Sri Vidyasankar which is quite timely:- //" As I said before, I think it is counter-productive to paint oneself into corners by taking hard positions on these issues, when our time could be better spent approaching them with an open mind."// With my warmest regards, Ram Chandran ----- Forwarded Message ----"Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (GE Infra, Water)" <vidyasankar.sundaresanBhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr; subrahmanian_vCc: Ram Chandran <ramvchandran; Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:26:58 AMRE: Sharing some thoughts with you all The following is probably going to be a long mail, so I apologize in advance to everybody... Dear Bhaskar, There is nothing surprising in my stance. As far as possible, and within the limits of my intellect and knowledge of Sanskrit, I have been interested only in learning and presenting what Sankara bhagavatpAda (and sureSvarAcArya) have taught. As an aside, and only because it has some bearing on the current discussion, it has been my conclusion that later AcAryas in the tradition (including vidyAraNya svAmin) have not deviated from the teachings of bhagavatpAda, no matter what construction may be put upon their texts. I will point you to Sankara bhagavatpAda's commentary on bR. up 1.4.7-10, which we have discussed back and forth many times, including in the yoga and advaita vedAnta thread on Advaita-L. I am, in particular, referring to the extended passage that talks of Atma-vijnAna-tat-smRti-saMtAna (saMtatiH) that leads effortlessly to nirodha of all citta vRtti-s ... and is also described as a niyama vidhi in the bhAshya - samyag-jnAna-prAptAv apy avaSyaM bhAvinI-pravRttir vA^N-manaH-kAyAnAm ... ... I won't quote the entire passage here, as anyone can look it up in a book or on the website that has the text of all the major commentaries (http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/). Please ask yourself what is the samyag-jnAna that is referred to here. Who is it that attains it (prApti)? How is it that EVEN AFTER (prAptAv api) attaining such samyag-jnAna, there can be any pravRtti of speech, mind and body? Whose vAk, manas and kAya are being described here?* Who is it that has a newly acquired jnAna pravRtti that can be weaker (daurbalya in the bhAshya) than the previously existing stronger pravRtti (described as balIya in the bhAshya) towards action? For whom is the recollection of Atma-vijnAna, bolstered by tapas and vairAgya prescribed here, as a niyama vidhi, if not as an apUrva vidhi? The Atma-vijnAna has to be there before it can be recollected, right? Who is the person who has to recollect it? If such a person cannot be accepted as a jnAnI and a jIvanmukta, what word should we use to describe such a person? In parallel, please also see muNDaka bhAshya, where the upanishad refers to brahmavidAM varaH. I have given the exact citation from that commentary also, in the yoga and advaita series on Advaita-L. There is nothing problematic with attaching the terms -vara, -varIyas and -varishTha to the word brahmavit and describing grades of jIvanmukti. The upanishad and the bhAshya themselves do so, both implicitly in many places and explicitly in some places. No one, no matter how erudite, can explain away these and other similar statements in the upanishad bhAshyas. If some explanation is offered, with the statement, "this causes no harm to the siddhAnta", a similar explanation can conceivably be offered for every stance taken by other post-Sankaran authors, including even me! I would rather not do that. Instead, I would try to understand what ALL the bhAshyas say, with the full faith that there are no internal contradictions and inconsistencies in the writings of Sankara bhagavatpAda. This is also part of the reason why I don't participate much in online discussions, because I am fully content focusing on some "technical" detail in the Sanskrit texts, instead of writing in English with its all too convenient usage of capital letters that privilege some notions over others. For the record, and this is for Sri Nair, let me conclude by saying that having one's focus on the paramparA does not necessarily blind one to the Truth. Not unless the paramparA deliberately seals your eyes from the Truth. I think it is rather obvious to everyone that this is not the case. Instead, is not equally possible that deliberately (or even unintentionally) devaluing the paramparA is what blinds you to some truths, if not to the Truth? I will leave things with this provocative question. I don't want to get into these discussions all over again, either via private email or on a public mailing list, for two reasons. I don't have the time or the interest to spend on it and all that needs to be said on all sides of this topic has been said by various people, including you. I see certain merits in some of the points that you are making and in some other points that Sri Nair is making. I see other merits in other points that everybody else is making. As I said before, I think it is counter-productive to paint oneself into corners by taking hard positions on these issues, when our time could be better spent approaching them with an open mind. For the time being, I have exhausted the topic from my end (I never was a major participant to begin with). Needless to say, I will try to follow, once in a while, the discussion on the Advaitin list, but unless I have some major insight to share with the rest, I will keep quiet. Best regards, Vidyasankar * ps. I like the traditional triad of vAk, manas and kAya (VMK) better than the often used BMI. For one thing, it highlights speech, which is neglected in the formulation of BMI. vAk-samyama and mauna are as important for tattva-darSana as learning to train and control the mind, intellect and the body. For another, VMK bundles up M and I into one manas, which is actually how everyone operates in this world. We use both our minds and intellects but delude ourselves into believing that we primarily use our intellects. At the same time, we think that everybody else never uses their intellect but only their mind! Bhaskar YR [bhaskar.yr] Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:58 AMsubrahmanian_vCc: Dennis Waite; jai1971; madathilnair; VKrishnamurthi; Ramvchabdran; Neelakantan; sunder Hattangadi; Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (GE Infra, Water)Re: Sharing some thoughts with you all Humble praNAms Sri Subbu prabhujiHare KrishnaI am really very grateful to your goodself for drafting this very detailed article on jnAni's BMI...I wholeheartedly appriciate your sincere efforts, dedication & tenacity in presenting your view points...You have taken somany shruti, bhAshya references to substatiate your claims. It is good to see unlike others, (who are more particular about propagating advaita vedanta under the tag of 'my understanding') you have put-in significant effort to uphold your view points with the support of shankara bhAshya vAkya-s & some stories narrated in shruti-s ...Kindly onceagain, accept my praNAms prabhuji..Since you donot want to continue this discussion, I dont see any point in replying to your observations prabhuji...Infact, I could make out what would be there in the whole article after reading your first two lines of that article :-)) I shall pass on my general comments on your article in advaitin list since now it is available for all the members of the list...Anyway, it is surprising to see Sri Vidya prabhuji, my cybernet guruji, too acknowledged your mail positively, when he himself denied the individuality to jeevan mukta in his article...Anyway, I shall discuss that issue with him separately in due course.Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 Namaste. I am sorry to say this is really ridiculous. Private mails, on which their authors do not want to debate further, are reproduced here without offering any explanations. This is politics and I can't understand the relevance of such machinations in a Group which professes spirituality and advaita. Shri VSS-ji is free to hold his own views. The same applies to Subbuji too. But why are their pronouncements treated as special category epiphany here? It is a fact that VSS-ji is now saying things which contradict what he has displayed on his homepage and in the FAQ there. Any one with minimum gray matter in his head can point this out. Now Subbuji has sent a *circular* confidential(!) private mail in reply to Bhaskarji's quoted below. It reads really like a stinker. Are you guys going to publish the same too here? God forbid. Now everyone has come around to accept the fact that there are two contradictory opinions expressed in our scriptures. If they are really contradictory, then we can't rely on our scriptures and teachers. Contradictory opinions cannot be christened 'teachings'. A teaching should be such that it is unambiguous because any teaching ought to bring about knowledge. There is no ambiguity about the first opinion. The second one compromises Advaita. I would, therefore, vote for No. 1 wholeheartedly. I am least bothered about what others, whom we call scholars or stitaprajnAs (actually one of the persons was described so), have to say. Position No. 1 is not for arbitration. If any reconciliation is attempted, the objective of it should be to safeguard No. 1, which is true Advaita, and not to sail in two boats. Unless such genuine efforts for reconciliation come forth, there is no alternative but to say that parampara has taken precedence over Truth. Full stop. Best regards to all. Madathil Nair ______________ If the advaitin , Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote: > > Namaste: > > Since the message from Sri Vidyasankar is quite useful for members who have been following this thread, I am forwarding to the list. I want to thank Sri Vidya for taking his time to answer Sri Bhaskarji's recent message. I agree with the following conclusive statement of Sri Vidyasankar which is quite timely:- // " As I said before, I think it is counter-productive to paint oneself into corners by taking hard positions on these issues, when our time could be better spent approaching them with an open mind. " // > > With my warmest regards, > > Ram Chandran > > > ----- Forwarded Message ---- > " Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (GE Infra, Water) " <vidyasankar.sundaresan > Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr; subrahmanian_v > Cc: Ram Chandran <ramvchandran; Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:26:58 AM > RE: Sharing some thoughts with you all > > The following is probably going to be a long mail, so I apologize in advance to everybody... > > Dear Bhaskar, > > There is nothing surprising in my stance. As far as possible, and within the limits of my intellect and knowledge of Sanskrit, I have been interested only in learning and presenting what Sankara bhagavatpAda (and sureSvarAcArya) have taught. As an aside, and only because it has some bearing on the current discussion, it has been my conclusion that later AcAryas in the tradition (including vidyAraNya svAmin) have not deviated from the teachings of bhagavatpAda, no matter what construction may be put upon their texts. > > I will point you to Sankara bhagavatpAda's commentary on bR. up 1.4.7-10, which we have discussed back and forth many times, including in the yoga and advaita vedAnta thread on Advaita-L. I am, in particular, referring to the extended passage that talks of Atma- vijnAna-tat-smRti-saMtAna (saMtatiH) that leads effortlessly to nirodha of all citta vRtti-s ... and is also described as a niyama vidhi in the bhAshya - > > samyag-jnAna-prAptAv apy avaSyaM bhAvinI-pravRttir vA^N-manaH- kAyAnAm ... ... > > I won't quote the entire passage here, as anyone can look it up in a book or on the website that has the text of all the major commentaries (http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/). > > Please ask yourself what is the samyag-jnAna that is referred to here. Who is it that attains it (prApti)? How is it that EVEN AFTER (prAptAv api) attaining such samyag-jnAna, there can be any pravRtti of speech, mind and body? Whose vAk, manas and kAya are being described here?* Who is it that has a newly acquired jnAna pravRtti that can be weaker (daurbalya in the bhAshya) than the previously existing stronger pravRtti (described as balIya in the bhAshya) towards action? For whom is the recollection of Atma-vijnAna, bolstered by tapas and vairAgya prescribed here, as a niyama vidhi, if not as an apUrva vidhi? The Atma-vijnAna has to be there before it can be recollected, right? Who is the person who has to recollect it? If such a person cannot be accepted as a jnAnI and a jIvanmukta, what word should we use to describe such a person? > > In parallel, please also see muNDaka bhAshya, where the upanishad refers to brahmavidAM varaH. I have given the exact citation from that commentary also, in the yoga and advaita series on Advaita-L. There is nothing problematic with attaching the terms -vara, -varIyas and -varishTha to the word brahmavit and describing grades of jIvanmukti. The upanishad and the bhAshya themselves do so, both implicitly in many places and explicitly in some places. > > No one, no matter how erudite, can explain away these and other similar statements in the upanishad bhAshyas. If some explanation is offered, with the statement, " this causes no harm to the siddhAnta " , a similar explanation can conceivably be offered for every stance taken by other post-Sankaran authors, including even me! I would rather not do that. Instead, I would try to understand what ALL the bhAshyas say, with the full faith that there are no internal contradictions and inconsistencies in the writings of Sankara bhagavatpAda. This is also part of the reason why I don't participate much in online discussions, because I am fully content focusing on some " technical " detail in the Sanskrit texts, instead of writing in English with its all too convenient usage of capital letters that privilege some notions over others. > > For the record, and this is for Sri Nair, let me conclude by saying that having one's focus on the paramparA does not necessarily blind one to the Truth. Not unless the paramparA deliberately seals your eyes from the Truth. I think it is rather obvious to everyone that this is not the case. Instead, is not equally possible that deliberately (or even unintentionally) devaluing the paramparA is what blinds you to some truths, if not to the Truth? I will leave things with this provocative question. > > I don't want to get into these discussions all over again, either via private email or on a public mailing list, for two reasons. I don't have the time or the interest to spend on it and all that needs to be said on all sides of this topic has been said by various people, including you. I see certain merits in some of the points that you are making and in some other points that Sri Nair is making. I see other merits in other points that everybody else is making. As I said before, I think it is counter-productive to paint oneself into corners by taking hard positions on these issues, when our time could be better spent approaching them with an open mind. For the time being, I have exhausted the topic from my end (I never was a major participant to begin with). Needless to say, I will try to follow, once in a while, the discussion on the Advaitin list, but unless I have some major insight to share with the rest, I will keep quiet. > > Best regards, > Vidyasankar > > * ps. I like the traditional triad of vAk, manas and kAya (VMK) better than the often used BMI. For one thing, it highlights speech, which is neglected in the formulation of BMI. vAk-samyama and mauna are as important for tattva-darSana as learning to train and control the mind, intellect and the body. For another, VMK bundles up M and I into one manas, which is actually how everyone operates in this world. We use both our minds and intellects but delude ourselves into believing that we primarily use our intellects. At the same time, we think that everybody else never uses their intellect but only their mind! > > > ________________________________ > > Bhaskar YR [bhaskar.yr] > Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:58 AM > subrahmanian_v > Cc: Dennis Waite; jai1971; madathilnair; VKrishnamurthi; Ramvchabdran; Neelakantan; sunder Hattangadi; Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (GE Infra, Water) > Re: Sharing some thoughts with you all > > > Humble praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji > Hare Krishna > > I am really very grateful to your goodself for drafting this very detailed article on jnAni's BMI...I wholeheartedly appriciate your sincere efforts, dedication & tenacity in presenting your view points...You have taken somany shruti, bhAshya references to substatiate your claims. It is good to see unlike others, (who are more particular about propagating advaita vedanta under the tag of 'my understanding') you have put-in significant effort to uphold your view points with the support of shankara bhAshya vAkya-s & some stories narrated in shruti-s ...Kindly onceagain, accept my praNAms prabhuji.. > > Since you donot want to continue this discussion, I dont see any point in replying to your observations prabhuji...Infact, I could make out what would be there in the whole article after reading your first two lines of that article :-)) I shall pass on my general comments on your article in advaitin list since now it is available for all the members of the list... > > Anyway, it is surprising to see Sri Vidya prabhuji, my cybernet guruji, too acknowledged your mail positively, when he himself denied the individuality to jeevan mukta in his article...Anyway, I shall discuss that issue with him separately in due course. > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 Namaste Sri.Nair-ji, advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > > Now everyone has come around to accept the fact that there are two > contradictory opinions expressed in our scriptures. I do not accept branding contradiction on scriptures wholesale. Scriptures are two types -- unauthored and authored. Unauthored scriptures by definition are flawless. Your attribution of contradictional falw, if at all, must exist on the uthored scriptures. I do agree with you that some vEdantin's authored texts have this flaw of internal contradictions and must be avoided. Regards, Srinivas. If they are > really contradictory, then we can't rely on our scriptures and > teachers. Contradictory opinions cannot be christened 'teachings'. A > teaching should be such that it is unambiguous because any teaching > ought to bring about knowledge. > > There is no ambiguity about the first opinion. The second one > compromises Advaita. I would, therefore, vote for No. 1 > wholeheartedly. > > I am least bothered about what others, whom we call scholars or > stitaprajnAs (actually one of the persons was described so), have to > say. Position No. 1 is not for arbitration. > > If any reconciliation is attempted, the objective of it should be to > safeguard No. 1, which is true Advaita, and not to sail in two boats. > Unless such genuine efforts for reconciliation come forth, there is > no alternative but to say that parampara has taken precedence over > Truth. Full stop. > > Best regards to all. > > Madathil Nair > ______________ > > If the advaitin , Ram Chandran > <ramvchandran@> wrote: > > > > Namaste: > > > > Since the message from Sri Vidyasankar is quite useful for members > who have been following this thread, I am forwarding to the list. I > want to thank Sri Vidya for taking his time to answer Sri Bhaskarji's > recent message. I agree with the following conclusive statement of > Sri Vidyasankar which is quite timely:- // " As I said before, I think > it is counter-productive to paint oneself into corners by taking hard > positions on these issues, when our time could be better spent > approaching them with an open mind. " // > > > > With my warmest regards, > > > > Ram Chandran > > > > > > ----- Forwarded Message ---- > > " Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (GE Infra, Water) " > <vidyasankar.sundaresan@> > > Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr@>; subrahmanian_v@ > > Cc: Ram Chandran <ramvchandran@>; Thursday, February 26, > 2009 10:26:58 AM > > RE: Sharing some thoughts with you all > > > > The following is probably going to be a long mail, so I apologize > in advance to everybody... > > > > Dear Bhaskar, > > > > There is nothing surprising in my stance. As far as possible, and > within the limits of my intellect and knowledge of Sanskrit, I have > been interested only in learning and presenting what Sankara > bhagavatpAda (and sureSvarAcArya) have taught. As an aside, and only > because it has some bearing on the current discussion, it has been my > conclusion that later AcAryas in the tradition (including vidyAraNya > svAmin) have not deviated from the teachings of bhagavatpAda, no > matter what construction may be put upon their texts. > > > > I will point you to Sankara bhagavatpAda's commentary on bR. up > 1.4.7-10, which we have discussed back and forth many times, > including in the yoga and advaita vedAnta thread on Advaita-L. I am, > in particular, referring to the extended passage that talks of Atma- > vijnAna-tat-smRti-saMtAna (saMtatiH) that leads effortlessly to > nirodha of all citta vRtti-s ... and is also described as a niyama > vidhi in the bhAshya - > > > > samyag-jnAna-prAptAv apy avaSyaM bhAvinI-pravRttir vA^N-manaH- > kAyAnAm ... ... > > > > I won't quote the entire passage here, as anyone can look it up in > a book or on the website that has the text of all the major > commentaries (http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/). > > > > Please ask yourself what is the samyag-jnAna that is referred to > here. Who is it that attains it (prApti)? How is it that EVEN AFTER > (prAptAv api) attaining such samyag-jnAna, there can be any pravRtti > of speech, mind and body? Whose vAk, manas and kAya are being > described here?* Who is it that has a newly acquired jnAna pravRtti > that can be weaker (daurbalya in the bhAshya) than the previously > existing stronger pravRtti (described as balIya in the bhAshya) > towards action? For whom is the recollection of Atma-vijnAna, > bolstered by tapas and vairAgya prescribed here, as a niyama vidhi, > if not as an apUrva vidhi? The Atma-vijnAna has to be there before it > can be recollected, right? Who is the person who has to recollect it? > If such a person cannot be accepted as a jnAnI and a jIvanmukta, what > word should we use to describe such a person? > > > > In parallel, please also see muNDaka bhAshya, where the upanishad > refers to brahmavidAM varaH. I have given the exact citation from > that commentary also, in the yoga and advaita series on Advaita-L. > There is nothing problematic with attaching the terms -vara, - varIyas > and -varishTha to the word brahmavit and describing grades of > jIvanmukti. The upanishad and the bhAshya themselves do so, both > implicitly in many places and explicitly in some places. > > > > No one, no matter how erudite, can explain away these and other > similar statements in the upanishad bhAshyas. If some explanation is > offered, with the statement, " this causes no harm to the siddhAnta " , > a similar explanation can conceivably be offered for every stance > taken by other post-Sankaran authors, including even me! I would > rather not do that. Instead, I would try to understand what ALL the > bhAshyas say, with the full faith that there are no internal > contradictions and inconsistencies in the writings of Sankara > bhagavatpAda. This is also part of the reason why I don't participate > much in online discussions, because I am fully content focusing on > some " technical " detail in the Sanskrit texts, instead of writing in > English with its all too convenient usage of capital letters that > privilege some notions over others. > > > > For the record, and this is for Sri Nair, let me conclude by saying > that having one's focus on the paramparA does not necessarily blind > one to the Truth. Not unless the paramparA deliberately seals your > eyes from the Truth. I think it is rather obvious to everyone that > this is not the case. Instead, is not equally possible that > deliberately (or even unintentionally) devaluing the paramparA is > what blinds you to some truths, if not to the Truth? I will leave > things with this provocative question. > > > > I don't want to get into these discussions all over again, either > via private email or on a public mailing list, for two reasons. I > don't have the time or the interest to spend on it and all that needs > to be said on all sides of this topic has been said by various > people, including you. I see certain merits in some of the points > that you are making and in some other points that Sri Nair is making. > I see other merits in other points that everybody else is making. As > I said before, I think it is counter-productive to paint oneself into > corners by taking hard positions on these issues, when our time could > be better spent approaching them with an open mind. For the time > being, I have exhausted the topic from my end (I never was a major > participant to begin with). Needless to say, I will try to follow, > once in a while, the discussion on the Advaitin list, but unless I > have some major insight to share with the rest, I will keep quiet. > > > > Best regards, > > Vidyasankar > > > > * ps. I like the traditional triad of vAk, manas and kAya (VMK) > better than the often used BMI. For one thing, it highlights speech, > which is neglected in the formulation of BMI. vAk-samyama and mauna > are as important for tattva-darSana as learning to train and control > the mind, intellect and the body. For another, VMK bundles up M and I > into one manas, which is actually how everyone operates in this > world. We use both our minds and intellects but delude ourselves into > believing that we primarily use our intellects. At the same time, we > think that everybody else never uses their intellect but only their > mind! > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Bhaskar YR [bhaskar.yr@] > > Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:58 AM > > subrahmanian_v@ > > Cc: Dennis Waite; jai1971@; madathilnair@; VKrishnamurthi; > Ramvchabdran; Neelakantan; sunder Hattangadi; Sundaresan, Vidyasankar > (GE Infra, Water) > > Re: Sharing some thoughts with you all > > > > > > Humble praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji > > Hare Krishna > > > > I am really very grateful to your goodself for drafting this very > detailed article on jnAni's BMI...I wholeheartedly appriciate your > sincere efforts, dedication & tenacity in presenting your view > points...You have taken somany shruti, bhAshya references to > substatiate your claims. It is good to see unlike others, (who are > more particular about propagating advaita vedanta under the tag > of 'my understanding') you have put-in significant effort to uphold > your view points with the support of shankara bhAshya vAkya-s & some > stories narrated in shruti-s ...Kindly onceagain, accept my praNAms > prabhuji.. > > > > Since you donot want to continue this discussion, I dont see any > point in replying to your observations prabhuji...Infact, I could > make out what would be there in the whole article after reading your > first two lines of that article :-)) I shall pass on my general > comments on your article in advaitin list since now it is available > for all the members of the list... > > > > Anyway, it is surprising to see Sri Vidya prabhuji, my cybernet > guruji, too acknowledged your mail positively, when he himself denied > the individuality to jeevan mukta in his article...Anyway, I shall > discuss that issue with him separately in due course. > > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > bhaskar > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 Namaste to all. This is suggested purely as a means of reconciliation between Teachings 1 and 2. We talk so much about AdhyAropa apavAda. Can we take Teaching 1 as the ultimate apavAda of Teaching 2 and close this contentious issue? Is that not advaitic? Bhaskarji, kindly put in your thoughts. Best regards to all. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > This is suggested purely as a means of reconciliation between > Teachings 1 and 2. > > We talk so much about AdhyAropa apavAda. Can we take Teaching 1 as > the ultimate apavAda of Teaching 2 and close this contentious issue? > Is that not advaitic? Hari OM! Truth needs no reconciliation of any sort, only individuals may need. Contentious issues are there only as long as there are contenders. Please continue. ------------------------ Hari OM! -Srinivas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 Dear Sri.Nair-ji, advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > Namaste to all. > > This is suggested purely as a means of reconciliation between Teachings > 1 and 2. > > We talk so much about AdhyAropa apavAda. Can we take Teaching 1 as the > ultimate apavAda of Teaching 2 and close this contentious issue? Is > that not advaitic? > If you notice from the Subuji's article, Teaching 1 is purely from AdhyAsa Bhashya alone. Where as Teaching 2 is from Gita, Brahma Sutra proper (not the bhAshya) and other Upanishads. If you want to consider Teaching 1 as apavAda over Teaching 2, well what can I say, it is as good as considering bhAshya-kAra's text over mUla prastana trya itself. Why do we need prastana-traya then? Regards, Srinivas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > We talk so much about AdhyAropa apavAda. Can we take Teaching 1 as the > ultimate apavAda of Teaching 2 and close this contentious issue? Is that > not advaitic? Shri Nair-ji, praNAms, Maybe I agree with you in spirit. But perhaps we should also remember that these kind of apavAdAs are not mere intellectual exercises -- done by people sitting in front of their computers in their homes/offices -- but to be done, at least after the " apavAda " of their nitya-karmAs by a proper sarva-karma-sannyAsa (SKS) as given by a qualified guru. This point of SKS being repeated in many places in bhAshyakAra's work, as well as later advaitins' work, shows the emphasis on the adhikAri-bhEda (eligibility of the student's qualification to read that work). Please do not miss this point. praNAms to all advaitins Ramakrishna ~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 praNAms Sri Ramachandra prabhuji Hare Krishna I understand that Sri vidyA prabhuji has given permission to post all his mails to this forum...But I dont know how you have appended my mail (which was addressed to some restricted recipients ) also at the tail of Sri Vidya prabhuji's mail.....Atleast Sri VidyA prabhuji's below mail carries some stuff with respect to the on-going discussion and it has some useful information also. But my mail was, as you can see, intended to address only some set of prabhuji-s & my personal comments on some issues..My mail is, noway, of the interest of this list by anymeans prabhuji & IMO, my personal mail cannot be floated like this in this open forum without taking my concurrence prabhuji.... Anyway, I am not here to dispute all these issues with you prabhuji...But since you are taking all the trouble to cross post these mails, I am just seeking the clarification from your goodself prabhuji...If you were so eager and in a hurry in forwarding Sri Vidya's mail to the forum and appended mail of mine was an inadvertent overlook by your goodself, kindly ignore this mail... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Ram Chandran <ramvchandran Ram Chandran <ramvchandran Sent by: advaitin 02/26/2009 11:03 PM Please respond to advaitin To advaitin list <advaitin > cc Subject Fw: Sharing some thoughts with you all Namaste: Since the message from Sri Vidyasankar is quite useful for members who have been following this thread, I am forwarding to the list. I want to thank Sri Vidya for taking his time to answer Sri Bhaskarji's recent message. I agree with the following conclusive statement of Sri Vidyasankar which is quite timely:- // " As I said before, I think it is counter-productive to paint oneself into corners by taking hard positions on these issues, when our time could be better spent approaching them with an open mind. " // With my warmest regards, Ram Chandran ----- Forwarded Message ---- " Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (GE Infra, Water) " <vidyasankar.sundaresan Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr; subrahmanian_v Cc: Ram Chandran <ramvchandran; Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:26:58 AM RE: Sharing some thoughts with you all The following is probably going to be a long mail, so I apologize in advance to everybody... Dear Bhaskar, There is nothing surprising in my stance. As far as possible, and within the limits of my intellect and knowledge of Sanskrit, I have been interested only in learning and presenting what Sankara bhagavatpAda (and sureSvarAcArya) have taught. As an aside, and only because it has some bearing on the current discussion, it has been my conclusion that later AcAryas in the tradition (including vidyAraNya svAmin) have not deviated from the teachings of bhagavatpAda, no matter what construction may be put upon their texts. I will point you to Sankara bhagavatpAda's commentary on bR. up 1.4.7-10, which we have discussed back and forth many times, including in the yoga and advaita vedAnta thread on Advaita-L. I am, in particular, referring to the extended passage that talks of Atma-vijnAna-tat-smRti-saMtAna (saMtatiH) that leads effortlessly to nirodha of all citta vRtti-s ... and is also described as a niyama vidhi in the bhAshya - samyag-jnAna-prAptAv apy avaSyaM bhAvinI-pravRttir vA^N-manaH-kAyAnAm ... ... I won't quote the entire passage here, as anyone can look it up in a book or on the website that has the text of all the major commentaries (http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/). Please ask yourself what is the samyag-jnAna that is referred to here. Who is it that attains it (prApti)? How is it that EVEN AFTER (prAptAv api) attaining such samyag-jnAna, there can be any pravRtti of speech, mind and body? Whose vAk, manas and kAya are being described here?* Who is it that has a newly acquired jnAna pravRtti that can be weaker (daurbalya in the bhAshya) than the previously existing stronger pravRtti (described as balIya in the bhAshya) towards action? For whom is the recollection of Atma-vijnAna, bolstered by tapas and vairAgya prescribed here, as a niyama vidhi, if not as an apUrva vidhi? The Atma-vijnAna has to be there before it can be recollected, right? Who is the person who has to recollect it? If such a person cannot be accepted as a jnAnI and a jIvanmukta, what word should we use to describe such a person? In parallel, please also see muNDaka bhAshya, where the upanishad refers to brahmavidAM varaH. I have given the exact citation from that commentary also, in the yoga and advaita series on Advaita-L. There is nothing problematic with attaching the terms -vara, -varIyas and -varishTha to the word brahmavit and describing grades of jIvanmukti. The upanishad and the bhAshya themselves do so, both implicitly in many places and explicitly in some places. No one, no matter how erudite, can explain away these and other similar statements in the upanishad bhAshyas. If some explanation is offered, with the statement, " this causes no harm to the siddhAnta " , a similar explanation can conceivably be offered for every stance taken by other post-Sankaran authors, including even me! I would rather not do that. Instead, I would try to understand what ALL the bhAshyas say, with the full faith that there are no internal contradictions and inconsistencies in the writings of Sankara bhagavatpAda. This is also part of the reason why I don't participate much in online discussions, because I am fully content focusing on some " technical " detail in the Sanskrit texts, instead of writing in English with its all too convenient usage of capital letters that privilege some notions over others. For the record, and this is for Sri Nair, let me conclude by saying that having one's focus on the paramparA does not necessarily blind one to the Truth. Not unless the paramparA deliberately seals your eyes from the Truth. I think it is rather obvious to everyone that this is not the case. Instead, is not equally possible that deliberately (or even unintentionally) devaluing the paramparA is what blinds you to some truths, if not to the Truth? I will leave things with this provocative question. I don't want to get into these discussions all over again, either via private email or on a public mailing list, for two reasons. I don't have the time or the interest to spend on it and all that needs to be said on all sides of this topic has been said by various people, including you. I see certain merits in some of the points that you are making and in some other points that Sri Nair is making. I see other merits in other points that everybody else is making. As I said before, I think it is counter-productive to paint oneself into corners by taking hard positions on these issues, when our time could be better spent approaching them with an open mind. For the time being, I have exhausted the topic from my end (I never was a major participant to begin with). Needless to say, I will try to follow, once in a while, the discussion on the Advaitin list, but unless I have some major insight to share with the rest, I will keep quiet. Best regards, Vidyasankar * ps. I like the traditional triad of vAk, manas and kAya (VMK) better than the often used BMI. For one thing, it highlights speech, which is neglected in the formulation of BMI. vAk-samyama and mauna are as important for tattva-darSana as learning to train and control the mind, intellect and the body. For another, VMK bundles up M and I into one manas, which is actually how everyone operates in this world. We use both our minds and intellects but delude ourselves into believing that we primarily use our intellects. At the same time, we think that everybody else never uses their intellect but only their mind! Bhaskar YR [bhaskar.yr] Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:58 AM subrahmanian_v Cc: Dennis Waite; jai1971; madathilnair; VKrishnamurthi; Ramvchabdran; Neelakantan; sunder Hattangadi; Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (GE Infra, Water) Re: Sharing some thoughts with you all Humble praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji Hare Krishna I am really very grateful to your goodself for drafting this very detailed article on jnAni's BMI...I wholeheartedly appriciate your sincere efforts, dedication & tenacity in presenting your view points...You have taken somany shruti, bhAshya references to substatiate your claims. It is good to see unlike others, (who are more particular about propagating advaita vedanta under the tag of 'my understanding') you have put-in significant effort to uphold your view points with the support of shankara bhAshya vAkya-s & some stories narrated in shruti-s ...Kindly onceagain, accept my praNAms prabhuji.. Since you donot want to continue this discussion, I dont see any point in replying to your observations prabhuji...Infact, I could make out what would be there in the whole article after reading your first two lines of that article :-)) I shall pass on my general comments on your article in advaitin list since now it is available for all the members of the list... Anyway, it is surprising to see Sri Vidya prabhuji, my cybernet guruji, too acknowledged your mail positively, when he himself denied the individuality to jeevan mukta in his article...Anyway, I shall discuss that issue with him separately in due course. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Namaste Bhaskarji and other members of the list: As a moderator of the list, I do receive mails from members asking me to forward to the list when they are not sure if the message is appropriate. Often my mailbox gets filled with overwhelming number of mails. Honestly, I did not see the tail with your message and I would have normally cut that part. That was an inadvertant error. I apologize and my sending any mails forwarded to the list with the good intention of sharing advaitic knowledge with the rest of the membership. I earnestly request you, Nairji and others not to send any mails that you correspond with others to me. I have not interest in your private conversations with others on the list matter. Members who want to forward any moderation related mails, please send them to advatins. With my warm regards, Ram Chandran advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > I am just seeking the clarification from your > goodself prabhuji...If you were so eager and in a hurry in forwarding Sri > Vidya's mail to the forum and appended mail of mine was an inadvertent > overlook by your goodself, kindly ignore this mail... > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar > > > Ram Chandran > <ramvchandran@yah > oo.com> To > Sent by: advaitin list > advaitin@gro <advaitin > > ups.com cc > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 We talk so much about AdhyAropa apavAda. Can we take Teaching 1 as the ultimate apavAda of Teaching 2 and close this contentious issue? Is that not advaitic? Bhaskarji, kindly put in your thoughts. praNAms Sri MN prabhuji Hare Krishna I believe, we have made that attempt also earlier is it not?? if jnAni/Atman has indriya-s let him have all indriya-s in the form of adhyArOpa, coz. in reality he is always sarvendriya vivarjita (apavAda)...(vide geeta bhAshya 13-12/13)...But nobody wants to take it...It is because they want to see the individualized set of indriya-s of A jnAni/Atman :-)) So prabhuji, adhyArOpa - apavAda methodology does not work here, prabhuji-s want to 'continue' this discussion without bringing in any methodology :-)) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I earnestly request you, Nairji and others not to send any mails that you correspond with others to me. I have not interest in your private conversations with others on the list matter. praNAms Sri Ramachandra prabhuji Hare Krishna Thanks for your suggestion prabhuji...I'd adhere to it... As far as my knowledge goes sofar I've not MARKED any 'private correspondence' to you...I hope you would agree with me I am the last man to do so...But I am not clear, if some private correspondence, which has already found a place in open forum & if these correspondences & articles require further insights/thoughts from the members who think it other wise, whether they are permitted to do so!! For example, recently publicly published Sri Subbuji's article, in this article Sri Subbu prabhuji has made some observations on sadyo mukti (based on BSB 1-1-4) & jeevan mukti (based on BSB 4-1-15) etc. and has taken some upanishadic stories etc. to prove jnAni's body, mind & intellect etc. These things need to be reviewed from other perspective as well!!..For that we need to continue the discussion..But problem here is author of this article not available for open discussion and his article has already been safely placed in file section as a 'final verdict' on this topic...Under these circumstances, what should members do...Kindly suggest prabhuji. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar 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.