On Huxley's Advaitic experience

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

AkAshAt patitam toya yadA gachati sAgaram

sarva deva namaskaram keshavam prati gachati

Warm regards

R.. S. Mani--- On Mon, 23/3/09, Antharyami <sathvatha wrote:

Antharyami <sathvatha On Huxley's Advaitic experienceadvaitin Date: Monday, 23 March, 2009, 10:52 PM

 

 

 

<Quote: msg 44211/ SNS/ March 23 > One may worship the supreme brahman in various forms such as shiva, viShNu, Rama, Krishna, Ganapati, etc. In fact one need not even be a Hindu to attain the advaitic experience. When westerners used to ask Kanchi paramacharya whether they should convert to Hinduism, he would tell them that they could remain in their own religion and practise advaita. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa proved that one could get the advaitic experience through Christianity and Islam also. There is a book by Aldous Huxley entitled "The Perennial Philosophy" in which he has shown that Christian saints and Muslim Sufis attained the same advaitic experience as the Indian Rishis. This being so, it would be too narrow a view to say that shakti worship is the only means to advaitic realization.

 

Hari OM~

Pranams Sri Sastri ji,

 

I must say that I am horrified by the above statements particularly because it is from your desk! All that you have said about Advaita is nothing more than the liberal pop-religio- socio-democratic tone that any reformer or a theosophist would prefer but definitely not by the Vaidikas. Advaita is strictly oriented towards Vedas which are confined to theological and philosophical affiliations which is essentially esoteric by nature. Aldous Huxley is certainly not an apta, for he is not entitled to estimate the Advaitic experience that is subjective. People like Huxley would even go to the extent to prescribe Quran ‘parayana’ during pradosa-kala and read Bible in Bhagavata saptaha. Such people may even design brand new ‘maha-vakya-s’ from ‘Allopanisad’ or ‘Jesu-sastra’! I see all this as fancy blend of confused so-called

religious tendencies which falls under the banner of what I call pseudo-secularism.

Let Huxley’s policies serve elsewhere but not here atleast in this sacred floor where we worship and celebrate the great Acarya like Bagavat-pada who insisted on eka-bhakti and ananya yoga in the Gita-bhasya. Acarya declares his conviction thus ‘na anyo bhagavato Vasudeva paraH asti, ataH sa eva na gatiH’ – ‘there is non other than Lord Vasudeva (higher than him), He alone is our refuge’. Sankara interestingly marks ‘those who do not seek Vasudeva does not reach him; for the Lord thus envinces pity for such worshippers’ – ‘aho kashtataram vartate, ityanutrosam darsayati bhagavan’. When Krsna says in BG 18.65 ‘mam namaskuru’, Sankara in his commentary adds ‘namaskAram mam eva kuru’ – ‘worship Vasudeva

alone’.

Names and forms are not Vasudeva; for he is the transcendental reality. Names and forms exist due to Ajnana. Those who see Jesus and Allah are those who are deluded. They merely worship ignorance and nothing else. ‘Mudah’ says Krsna categorically. The so-called forms which find no place in Vedas are ‘asuri-s’ and are hallucinations of the mleccas who lack ‘daivi-sampat’ .

No wonder why Arjuna exclaimed, as Sankara puts it ’O devesa! Why do people not salute you? Why don’t they bow down unto you (Vasudeva) when you are the great soul? O! Lord you are the imperishable transcendence. You alone and none else’ – ‘paramartastu sadasato param aksaram – tvameva na anyat’.

 

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan.J

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

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Antharyami <sathvatha wrote:

> Hari OM~

>

> Pranams Sri Sastri ji,

>

>

>

> I must say that I am horrified by the above statements particularly because

> it is from your desk! All that you have said about Advaita is nothing more

> than the liberal pop-religio-socio-democratic tone that any reformer or a

> theosophist would prefer but definitely not by the Vaidikas. Advaita is

> strictly oriented towards Vedas which are confined to theological and

> philosophical affiliations which is essentially esoteric by nature. Aldous

> Huxley is certainly not an apta, for he is not entitled to estimate the

> Advaitic experience that is subjective. People like Huxley would even go to

> the extent to prescribe Quran `parayana' during pradosa-kala and read Bible

> in Bhagavata saptaha. Such people may even design brand new `maha-vakya-s'

> from `Allopanisad' or `Jesu-sastra'! I see all this as fancy blend of

> confused so-called religious tendencies which falls under the banner of what

> I call pseudo-secularism.

>

> With Narayana Smrti,

>

> Devanathan.J

 

Dear Shri Devanathan,

I do not wish to enter into an argument with you. You seem to have no respect

for Kanchi Paramacharya's views. You do not seem to respect Ramakrishna

Paramahamsa either. So there is no common ground for us.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

SrI Aravind ji,

 

I think SrI Sastri ji was speaking about the subjective experience of great

saints, for example, SrI rAmakrishna paramahamsa who studied and practiced

advaita under Totapuri, a wandering sanyAsin belonging to the puri order of

advaita sampradAya. The same SrI Ramakrishna practiced other religions under the

guidance of masters belonging to the respective religious traditions. So, all

that we have here is *practice* alone.

Just as you said Huxley was not entitled to estimate subjective experience, so

are we not entitled to comment on such great saints as SrI rAmakrishna, for we

are absolutely ignorant of his subjective experiences.

Sastri-ji was only mentioning what SrI rAmakrishna *practiced* and preached,

while you were pulling out all theoretical proofs to theoretically conclude that

so and so is possible and so and so is impossible.

 

My idea is not to argue with you about SrI Ramakrishna's authenticity, for

neither I nor you can know his subjective experiences, so we would be just

fighting in darkness. Next thing is, presuming you are not jnAni, I simply find

your views against SrI rAmakrishna meaningless. Reason is that neither you

practiced advaita *fully* nor you know something about other religions. How can

anyone expect you to be *correct* in matters of which you know nothing?

 

Kindly note, I am not making any derogatory remarks about you. It is a plain

fact that none of us here is a realized soul and not a single person here has

practiced other religions. That is what I am mentioning here.

 

So, I feel Sastri-ji has done a right thing by avoiding getting into an argument

with you in these matters.

 

We have already had so much bloodshed in the name of sectarianism and bigotry.

Kindly don't again bring the narrow concepts of mleccha and vaidika. If at all

there is something called Secularism, it is one of finding unity among the

*core* principles of all religions. You cannot call it as Pseudo-secularism.

Rather, Pseudo-secularism is what most of our spiritually oriented younger

generation is doing now: They parrot verses from gIta and advaita, but are least

bothered about the atrocities being done by extremists on this vaidika religion.

They feel, they are being secular by not acting against such things. They just

don't care about *Service* to the mother land, its religion and its glorious

*vaidika* children(our own fellow beings) while enjoying all the western

luxuries and using borrowed western foul words to sound posh, planning for a

bright future in western countries.. and so on.

 

SrI rAmakrishna practically showed the path of finding the essential unity among

all religions which is the only way to eliminate all fundamental dogmatism and

persecutions in the name of religion. His method was not just meant for personal

salvation, but for universal peace. That is what is reflected in the motto of

SrI Ramakrishna Math:

" AtmanO mOkshArtham jagat hitAya cha " -- For the liberation of the Self and the

welfare of the world.

 

So, let us stop criticizing SrI Ramakrishna confining him to the issues related

to personal enlightenment. His purpose was something bigger than what we can

imagine. It is that of sarva dharma sambhava.

 

Let me conclude with the words of Swami Vivekananda from his famous speech in

the World Parliament of Religions, Chicago:

 

//Sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible descendant, fanaticism, have long

possessed this beautiful earth. They have filled the earth with violence,

drenched it often and often with human blood, destroyed civilization and sent

whole nations to despair. Had it not been for these horrible demons, human

society would be far more advanced than it is now. But their time is come; and I

fervently hope that the bell that tolled this morning in honor of this

convention may be the death-knell of all fanaticism, of all persecutions with

the sword or with the pen, and of all uncharitable feelings between persons

wending their way to the same goal.//

 

Thanks for your patient reading,

 

Ever yours in the Lord,

 

Sampath ~

 

 

!! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

[Guest guest]

--- On Mon, 3/23/09, Antharyami <sathvatha wrote:

 

Shree Devanathanji - PraNAms

 

With all due respects, I must say your recent post was degrading ONE SELF.

Vedanta is a pramaaNa to provide the knowledge that the self that one is the

self in all- aham brahma asmi, brahma vit brahmaiva bhavati, brahavit aapnoti

param. The advaitic experience is different from the knowledge of aham

brahmaasmi. We respect all religions including chaarvaakas who do not

to Veda as pramaaNa - we call him chaarvaaka muni, and also agree with the

tenants of other religions with those parts they are in tune with Vedas. Please

look into peace pilgrim - an American lady who became a parityaagi and traveled

around the US like a sanyaasini. You can find about her in www.peacepilgrim.com

- what she preached without any knowledge of any scripture is pure love and

reflects essentially the vedantic teaching. She may not know aham brahmaasmi or

ayam aatma brahma but she lived in that as evident from her own words.

Experience of the divine is not sole

property of Hindus only - although Vedas formulated in impersonal form the

essential truth - Hence Vedas form a pramANa or means of knowledge - not

otherwise.

 

Anyway besides our opinions aside, the contents of your post is in very poor

taste, I must say, and very disappointing to say the least.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

[Guest guest]

I actually wanted to quote the following excerpt which appears more relevant to

the present context:

 

Swami Vivekananda's address at the final session of the World's Parliament of

Religions, Chicago,

 

27th September, 1893

 

//The World's Parliament of Religions has become an accomplished fact, and the

merciful Father has helped those who laboured to bring it into existence, and

crowned with success their most unselfish labour.

 

My thanks to those noble souls whose large hearts and love of truth first

dreamed this wonderful dream and then realised it. My thanks to the shower of

liberal sentiments that has overflowed this platform. My thanks to his

enlightened audience for their uniform kindness to me and for their appreciation

of every thought that tends to smooth the friction of religions. A few jarring

notes were heard from time to time in this harmony. My special thanks to them,

for they have, by their striking contrast, made general harmony the sweeter.

 

Much has been said of the common ground of religious unity. I am not going just

now to venture my own theory. But if any one here hopes that this unity will

come by the triumph of any one of the religions and the destruction of the

others, to him I say, " Brother, yours is an impossible hope. " Do I wish that the

Christian would become Hindu? God forbid. Do I wish that the Hindu or Buddhist

would become Christian? God forbid.

 

The seed is put in the ground, and earth and air and water are placed around it.

Does the seed become the earth; or the air, or the water? No. It becomes a

plant, it develops after the law of its own growth, assimilates the air, the

earth, and the water, converts them into plant substance, and grows into a

plant.

 

Similar is the case with religion. The Christian is not to become a Hindu or a

Buddhist, nor a Hindu or a Buddhist to become a Christian. But each must

assimilate the spirit of the others and yet preserve his individuality and grow

according to his own law of growth.

 

If the Parliament of Religions has shown anything to the world it is this: It

has proved to the world that holiness, purity and charity are not the exclusive

possessions of any church in the world, and that every system has produced men

and women of the most exalted character. In the face of this evidence, if

anybody dreams of the exclusive survival of his own religion and the destruction

of the others, I pity him from the bottom of my heart, and point out to him that

upon the banner of every religion will soon be written, in spite of resistance:

" Help and not Fight, " " Assimilation and not Destruction, " " Harmony and Peace and

not Dissension. " //

 

 

!! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

[Guest guest]



Namaste,AkAshAt patitam toya yadA gachati sAgaramsarva deva namaskaram keshavam prati gachatiWarm regardsR.. S. Mani

 

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

Pranams to all members of the list:

 

I had to look this up online and wanted to share

the translation I found of Shri Maniji's quote above...

 

Akashaath patitam thoyam, yada gachati saagaraath,Sarva deva namaskaaram Keshavam pratigachati

 

Just as all the water that falls from the sky reaches the ocean,So prostrations to any god will reach the Supreme.

 

http://www.vanamaliashram.org/Puja.html

 

To add to that thought...

 

Yo yo yaam yaam tanum bhaktah shraddhayaarchitum icchati; Tasya tasyaachalaam shraddhaam taameva vidadhaamyaham.

 

21. Whatsoever form any devotee desires to worship with faith—

that (same) faith of his I make firm and unflinching. (BG 7.21)

I also want to share something I saw in the front of a church

this morning driving home ( I do not know the denomination

of the church and it does not matter)

 

"Instead of pointing a finger, reach out with a hand."

 

Sending love to all who have written in this thread, I remain

In His Service,

 

Radhe

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

Pranams Shri Sastri ji, Shri Sampath ji and Shri Sada ji,

 

         First of all Sastri ji, nowhere in my post, as you may see it, I have made any comments or remarks on Paramacarya’s statement for you to consider that I lack respect in him. I only insist on proper reading of Paramacarya’s views in tune with the Vaidika dharma, which for sure is what he actually implies. Further, please understand that voicing critical opinion on an issue does not mean disregard to the opponent at any rate. As Advaitins, vehemently refuting other schools of thought, say Ramanuja or Madhva, would no way mean disregard to those acaryas.

 

         Sampath ji, as expected has shown himself to be bit more enthusiastic than usual probably over enthusiastic now on the issue. Sampath-ji, I have only lamented the Huxley’s misconception of Advaitic experience, which concerned me a lot. I have nothing to comment on Ramakrsna Paramahamsa or Vivekananda; for they are limited to their socio-cultural situatedness formulated their own version and vision of (neo-) Vedanta designed for a different class of people on an entirely different domain As long as this particular group is concerned, which bears the caption “Sankara’s Advaita Philosophy”, I am duty bound to record my critical views and opinions based on the Sankara’s works and his tradition as and when the situation demands. You are free to preach, propund or propagate “paramahamsa’s” teachings anywhere you wish but make sure it is not morphed wrongly with that of Sankara’s in this group.

 

         Lastly Sada ji, I not surprised that my words stasted bad to you on this issue. But I humbly suggest, (if I may please), that you pay a random glance on the Tarka khanda portion of Brahma Sutra, where you will see Sankara heavily condemns the schools which do not comply with the essential import of Vedas. Stylometry of Sankara is that he shows no empathy to those who derails from the tenets and templates of Vedas. Sankara takes a close note even on the slightest issues, I would rather say, minute remarks that other schools make on Vedas, and makes sure it is seriously dealt with. One small example I can give you, on the last portion of the Tarka-khanda which deals with Pancaratra school, while commenting on the last sutra, Sankara cites Sandilya’s remarks on Vedas – “Not finding the highest good in the four Vedas Sandilya studied the scripture”; Sankara feels that this casts slur to Vedas and rejects the same calling it the Rajasa-prokta. More we find Sankara issuing statements like “Vaidikas must comepletely ignore and reject this view”; “the theory is not adopted even in the least by any worthy person. Hence it is to be wholly discarded by the followers of Vedas” etc.

 

         Sadaji you say: “Experience of the divine is not sole property of Hindus only”. Do you mean to say that the divine experience of bliss which is the ultimate end according to Advaita is achieved even without the knowledge of Sastras? The very central theme of the philosophy Advaita is ‘knowledge’ based. The Knowledge of identity ! is there any religion in the world that preaches this identity ? Here is what Sankara had to say on Buddhism: “All the (moral) behaviours that is based on Buddhist ideologies is a bundle of incoherence and are unjustifiable – All that Buddha taught breaks down like in quick sand; for Buddha showed his malevolence towards all creatures”. Now tell me can a person accomplish Advaitic experience, as Huxley insisted, without the knowledge of Maha-vakya-s? Sankarites would say a categorical No.

 

         Have you not read Buddha abusing Hindu practices calling it “a Brahmanic trick” ? Buddha in the Brahma-jala Sutta calls Brahmins as “cheats” and mocks at the sacred rituals prescribed by the Veda-s.

 

         Any attempt to engage in the co-called pursuit of liberal religious reconcilations would seriously degrade the Vedic tradition and it humiliates true followers of Sankara.

 

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Antharyami <sathvatha wrote:

>

> I have nothing to comment on Ramakrsna Paramahamsa or Vivekananda;

> for they are limited to their socio-cultural situatedness

> formulated their own version and vision of (neo-) Vedanta designed

> for a different class of people on an entirely different domain

 

Hari OM!

I read with interest to learn, whenever possible, posts from whose

who seem scholarly, and more aware. And reading such gives a pause.

 

> I have nothing to comment on Ramakrsna Paramahamsa or Vivekananda;

> for they are limited to their socio-cultural situatedness

> formulated their own version and vision of (neo-) Vedanta designed

> for a different class of people on an entirely different domain

 

Who/how to determine Ramakrishna or Vivekananda are limited to

their times, but not Sankara or Vyasa etc? Including God, who can

ever live without relating whatsoever to folks around, and deal

possibly- effectively and efficiently, prevailing circumstances

is beyond me.

 

> Any attempt to engage in the co-called pursuit of liberal religious

> reconcilations would seriously degrade the Vedic tradition and it

> humiliates true followers of Sankara.

 

This is, after all, merely a discussion group to share what we know

in friendly atmosphere. It is astonishing how such posts can ever

degrade any tradition or humiliate any followers, be it of Sankara

or Vedas. Far from humiliating, attempt and intent only seems to

honor and understand. No one need to reconcile any thing more than

what age old saying already says eloquently- " Ekam sat vipraa

bahudhaa vadanti " (Truth is one and wise speak of it in many ways).

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

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Namaste Devanathan ji,

 

Personally, I don't find your views objectionable at all if taken in

the right spirit. And I hope I don't get a red card for speaking my

mind.

 

There is a class of Hindu and Vedantins who are worthy of being called

Radical Universalists. The American Teacher, Sri Dharma Pravartaka

Acharya has much to say about such people and why the younger

generation of Hindus do not find Hinduism attractive in this age of

intellectual honesty and reason. Check out his book online at:

http://www.dharmacentral.com/universalism.htm

 

 

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Antharyami <sathvatha wrote:

> Hari OM~

>

> Pranams Shri Sastri ji, Shri Sampath ji and Shri Sada ji,

>

>

>

>          First of all Sastri ji, nowhere in my post, as you may see it, I

> have made any comments or remarks on Paramacarya’s statement for you to

> consider that I lack respect in him. I only insist on proper reading of

> Paramacarya’s views in tune with the Vaidika dharma, which for sure is what

> he actually implies. Further, please understand that voicing critical

> opinion on an issue does not mean disregard to the opponent at any rate. As

> Advaitins, vehemently refuting other schools of thought, say Ramanuja or

> Madhva, would no way mean disregard to those acaryas.

>

>

>

>          Sampath ji, as expected has shown himself to be bit more

> enthusiastic than usual probably over enthusiastic now on the issue.

> Sampath-ji, I have only lamented the Huxley’s misconception of Advaitic

> experience, which concerned me a lot. I have nothing to comment on Ramakrsna

> Paramahamsa or Vivekananda; for they are limited to their socio-cultural

> situatedness formulated their own version and vision of (neo-) Vedanta

> designed for a different class of people on an entirely different domain As

> long as this particular group is concerned, which bears the caption

> “Sankara’s Advaita Philosophy”, I am duty bound to record my critical views

> and opinions based on the Sankara’s works and his tradition as and when the

> situation demands. You are free to preach, propund or propagate

> “paramahamsa’s” teachings anywhere you wish but make sure it is not morphed

> wrongly with that of Sankara’s in this group.

>

>

>

>          Lastly Sada ji, I not surprised that my words stasted bad to you on

> this issue. But I humbly suggest, (if I may please), that you pay a random

> glance on the Tarka khanda portion of Brahma Sutra, where you will see

> Sankara heavily condemns the schools which do not comply with the essential

> import of Vedas. Stylometry of Sankara is that he shows no empathy to those

> who derails from the tenets and templates of Vedas. Sankara takes a close

> note even on the slightest issues, I would rather say, minute remarks that

> other schools make on Vedas, and makes sure it is seriously dealt with. One

> small example I can give you, on the last portion of the Tarka-khanda which

> deals with Pancaratra school, while commenting on the last sutra, Sankara

> cites Sandilya’s remarks on Vedas – “Not finding the highest good in the

> four Vedas Sandilya studied the scripture”; Sankara feels that this casts

> slur to Vedas and rejects the same calling it the Rajasa-prokta. More we

> find Sankara issuing statements like “Vaidikas must comepletely ignore and

> reject this view”; “the theory is not adopted even in the least by any

> worthy person. Hence it is to be wholly discarded by the followers of Vedas”

> etc.

>

>

>

>          Sadaji you say: “Experience of the divine is not sole property of

> Hindus only”. Do you mean to say that the divine experience of bliss which

> is the ultimate end according to Advaita is achieved even without the

> knowledge of Sastras? The very central theme of the philosophy Advaita is

> ‘knowledge’ based. The Knowledge of identity ! is there any religion in the

> world that preaches this identity ? Here is what Sankara had to say on

> Buddhism: “All the (moral) behaviours that is based on Buddhist ideologies

> is a bundle of incoherence and are unjustifiable – All that Buddha taught

> breaks down like in quick sand; for Buddha showed his malevolence towards

> all creatures”. Now tell me can a person accomplish Advaitic experience, as

> Huxley insisted, without the knowledge of Maha-vakya-s? Sankarites would say

> a categorical No.

>

>

>

>          Have you not read Buddha abusing Hindu practices calling it “a

> Brahmanic trick” ? Buddha in the Brahma-jala Sutta calls Brahmins as

> “cheats” and mocks at the sacred rituals prescribed by the Veda-s.

>

>

>

>          Any attempt to engage in the co-called pursuit of liberal religious

> reconcilations would seriously degrade the Vedic tradition and it humiliates

> true followers of Sankara.

>

>

>

> With Narayana Smrti,

>

> Devanathan.J

>

>

 

 

 

--

Kathirasan

 

Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.