re;

May 13, 2009

Dear Sadaji,

Pranamas,

Thank you for your reply. I am not misunderstding, what you say on the

standpoint of scriptural authorities, and saying I am right or you are

wrong. I am not doubting or challenging your scriptural mastery. I

respect you and admire your scriptural wisdom. I just saying nondual

truth cannot be proved and realized on the base of scriptures.

Ashtvakara says that: scriptural knowledge and yoga are not the means to

acquire self-knowledge. Ramana Maharshi was realized the truth without

any scriptures. Buddha rejected religion, scriptures and concept of god

after he found then useless to acquire the truth after thoroughly

verifying their validity. And as one goes into deeper research on

Advitha he finds the fact that Advith is nothing to do with Vedas.

The present religious Advitha which is based on the Vedas is modified

and introduced by Sri, Sankara to uplift the Santan Dharma, which was in

ruins in the clutches of Buddhism and Jainism. Thus all the preaching of

the religious based Advitha is based on the non-duality and practice is

based on the duality. The spiritual based [which was not based on

Vedas]Advith teaching of Sri, Sankara and Goudpada is lost or destroyed.

As one goes deeper in research one becomes aware of the fact that

Advith is extension of Buddhism. There was no Advitha in the Vedic

religion/Santan Dharma prior to Sri, Sankara that is prior to 8th

Century. As one goes deeper in research one finds even the original

nondual teaching of Buddha has been lost in time, and present teaching

is mixed and messed with the local and regional religions wherever it

existed. But still we find the traces of Sri, Sankara's and

Buddha's spiritual insights in some of the scriptures.

Therefore, it is necessary to for the seeker of truth to inquire on his

own and realize the nondual truth without any scriptures in this very

life time, and make sure of Sri.Sankara`s declaration world is myth

and Brahman alone is real.

Thus by quoting one authority from one scripture, and another authority

from another scripture, and trying to prove and realize the truth is

like, trying to drain the ocean drop by drop.

As Sri, Ramana Mahaarshi said: scriptural knowledge is conceptual

divisions invented by teachers of philosophy by their excessive

analysis. Where do all these concepts end? Why should confusion created

and then explained away? Fortunate is the man who does not lose him self

in the labyrinths of philosophy, but goes straight to the source from

which they all arise.

Therefore when Ramana Maharshi indicated the direct path to the truth,

is the source from which the false arises. Thus the source is the soul/

Ataman, which is the true self. Ataman itself is Brahman. Thus it is

necessary to view the worldview on the base of the source, which the

true self, and formless substance and witness of the experience of

diversity. Thus deeper inquiry, analysis and reasoning on the true base,

one can acquire the self –knowledge in lesser time and effort. The

unity in diversity is possible only through self-knowledge not by

mastering the scriptural knowledge.

With respect and regards.

Santthosh.

May 13, 2009

<< There was no Advitha in the Vedic religion/Santan Dharma prior to Sri,

Sankara that is prior to 8th Century. >>

One should be VERY VERY VERY careful while making statements like the one above.

Don't make such ridiculous remarks henceforth, my dear. I am really pained and

disturbed to see such remarks.

regs,

sriram

advaitin , " santthoshkumaar " <santthoshkumaar wrote:

>

> Dear Sadaji,

>

> Pranamas,

>

> Thank you for your reply. I am not misunderstding, what you say on the

> standpoint of scriptural authorities, and saying I am right or you are

> wrong. I am not doubting or challenging your scriptural mastery. I

> respect you and admire your scriptural wisdom. I just saying nondual

> truth cannot be proved and realized on the base of scriptures.

>

> Ashtvakara says that: scriptural knowledge and yoga are not the means to

> acquire self-knowledge. Ramana Maharshi was realized the truth without

> any scriptures. Buddha rejected religion, scriptures and concept of god

> after he found then useless to acquire the truth after thoroughly

> verifying their validity. And as one goes into deeper research on

> Advitha he finds the fact that Advith is nothing to do with Vedas.

>

> The present religious Advitha which is based on the Vedas is modified

> and introduced by Sri, Sankara to uplift the Santan Dharma, which was in

> ruins in the clutches of Buddhism and Jainism. Thus all the preaching of

> the religious based Advitha is based on the non-duality and practice is

> based on the duality. The spiritual based [which was not based on

> Vedas]Advith teaching of Sri, Sankara and Goudpada is lost or destroyed.

>

> As one goes deeper in research one becomes aware of the fact that

> Advith is extension of Buddhism. There was no Advitha in the Vedic

> religion/Santan Dharma prior to Sri, Sankara that is prior to 8th

> Century. As one goes deeper in research one finds even the original

> nondual teaching of Buddha has been lost in time, and present teaching

> is mixed and messed with the local and regional religions wherever it

> existed. But still we find the traces of Sri, Sankara's and

> Buddha's spiritual insights in some of the scriptures.

>

> Therefore, it is necessary to for the seeker of truth to inquire on his

> own and realize the nondual truth without any scriptures in this very

> life time, and make sure of Sri.Sankara`s declaration world is myth

> and Brahman alone is real.

>

> Thus by quoting one authority from one scripture, and another authority

> from another scripture, and trying to prove and realize the truth is

> like, trying to drain the ocean drop by drop.

>

> As Sri, Ramana Mahaarshi said: scriptural knowledge is conceptual

> divisions invented by teachers of philosophy by their excessive

> analysis. Where do all these concepts end? Why should confusion created

> and then explained away? Fortunate is the man who does not lose him self

> in the labyrinths of philosophy, but goes straight to the source from

> which they all arise.

>

> Therefore when Ramana Maharshi indicated the direct path to the truth,

> is the source from which the false arises. Thus the source is the soul/

> Ataman, which is the true self. Ataman itself is Brahman. Thus it is

> necessary to view the worldview on the base of the source, which the

> true self, and formless substance and witness of the experience of

> diversity. Thus deeper inquiry, analysis and reasoning on the true base,

> one can acquire the self –knowledge in lesser time and effort. The

> unity in diversity is possible only through self-knowledge not by

> mastering the scriptural knowledge.

>

> With respect and regards.

>

> Santthosh.

>

May 13, 2009

Ashtvakara says that: scriptural knowledge and yoga are not the means to

> acquire self-knowledge. Ramana Maharshi was realized the truth without

> any scriptures. Buddha rejected religion, scriptures and concept of god

> after he found then useless to acquire the truth after thoroughly

> verifying their validity. And as one goes into deeper research on

> Advitha he finds the fact that Advith is nothing to do with Vedas.

praNAms

Hare Krishna

Very interesting thoughts indeed!!! where did you get all these grand

ideas prabhuji?? kindly let us know...However, we, the followers of

shankara would firmly believe that an able student through shAstra vAkya

(alone) would get self realization...Ofcourse I do agree with you that

after jnAna advaita is nothing to do with veda-s, because after advaita

jnAna, one would realize that veda-s are no veda at that absolute

state...But till that time I would like to say 'veda (scripture)' has

something to do with advaita jnAna because advaita's brahman can be known

only with the aid of shAstra-s..( see shAstra yOnitvAt shankara

bhAshya)...shankara bhagavadpAda says to know that you are the secondless

brahman, shAstra is the ONLY ultimate (antya) pramANa...Yes, ramaNa

maharshi in his 'venkata ramaNa' janma did not study any of the scripture

prior to jnAna but that does not mean he is completely unfamiliar with the

scriptures..Why he has taken all the trouble to select some verses from

geeta, why he studied & referred to purAna texts like tripura rahasya etc.

if the scriptures are mere wasteful literature?? I dont know anything

about buddha & his realization, but in our tradition, even today we worship

scriptures giving it the status of mother...That is the reason why we call

scriptures with affection 'shruti mAta'...

I've one more doubt here, if yOga and scriptural knowledge both are useless

resource for the self knowledge then what exactly is the means for that

socalled self knowledge??

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

May 13, 2009

just as gravity existed time immemorial,untill newton postulated laws for us to

understand=so also advaitham existed as it is as non-dual principle darshana of

vedanta.adi-sankara,tried to verbalise the experiance for truth seekers,to have

similiar or identical experiance as he himself was an iswara putra or swayam

bhagavan .....

suresh.

advaitin , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

> << There was no Advitha in the Vedic religion/Santan Dharma prior to Sri,

Sankara that is prior to 8th Century. >>

>

> One should be VERY VERY VERY careful while making statements like the one

above.

>

> Don't make such ridiculous remarks henceforth, my dear. I am really pained

and disturbed to see such remarks.

>

> regs,

> sriram

>

> advaitin , " santthoshkumaar " <santthoshkumaar@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sadaji,

> >

> > Pranamas,

> >

> > Thank you for your reply. I am not misunderstding, what you say on the

> > standpoint of scriptural authorities, and saying I am right or you are

> > wrong. I am not doubting or challenging your scriptural mastery. I

> > respect you and admire your scriptural wisdom. I just saying nondual

> > truth cannot be proved and realized on the base of scriptures.

> >

> > Ashtvakara says that: scriptural knowledge and yoga are not the means to

> > acquire self-knowledge. Ramana Maharshi was realized the truth without

> > any scriptures. Buddha rejected religion, scriptures and concept of god

> > after he found then useless to acquire the truth after thoroughly

> > verifying their validity. And as one goes into deeper research on

> > Advitha he finds the fact that Advith is nothing to do with Vedas.

> >

> > The present religious Advitha which is based on the Vedas is modified

> > and introduced by Sri, Sankara to uplift the Santan Dharma, which was in

> > ruins in the clutches of Buddhism and Jainism. Thus all the preaching of

> > the religious based Advitha is based on the non-duality and practice is

> > based on the duality. The spiritual based [which was not based on

> > Vedas]Advith teaching of Sri, Sankara and Goudpada is lost or destroyed.

> >

> > As one goes deeper in research one becomes aware of the fact that

> > Advith is extension of Buddhism. There was no Advitha in the Vedic

> > religion/Santan Dharma prior to Sri, Sankara that is prior to 8th

> > Century. As one goes deeper in research one finds even the original

> > nondual teaching of Buddha has been lost in time, and present teaching

> > is mixed and messed with the local and regional religions wherever it

> > existed. But still we find the traces of Sri, Sankara's and

> > Buddha's spiritual insights in some of the scriptures.

> >

> > Therefore, it is necessary to for the seeker of truth to inquire on his

> > own and realize the nondual truth without any scriptures in this very

> > life time, and make sure of Sri.Sankara`s declaration world is myth

> > and Brahman alone is real.

> >

> > Thus by quoting one authority from one scripture, and another authority

> > from another scripture, and trying to prove and realize the truth is

> > like, trying to drain the ocean drop by drop.

> >

> > As Sri, Ramana Mahaarshi said: scriptural knowledge is conceptual

> > divisions invented by teachers of philosophy by their excessive

> > analysis. Where do all these concepts end? Why should confusion created

> > and then explained away? Fortunate is the man who does not lose him self

> > in the labyrinths of philosophy, but goes straight to the source from

> > which they all arise.

> >

> > Therefore when Ramana Maharshi indicated the direct path to the truth,

> > is the source from which the false arises. Thus the source is the soul/

> > Ataman, which is the true self. Ataman itself is Brahman. Thus it is

> > necessary to view the worldview on the base of the source, which the

> > true self, and formless substance and witness of the experience of

> > diversity. Thus deeper inquiry, analysis and reasoning on the true base,

> > one can acquire the self –knowledge in lesser time and effort. The

> > unity in diversity is possible only through self-knowledge not by

> > mastering the scriptural knowledge.

> >

> > With respect and regards.

> >

> > Santthosh.

> >

May 13, 2009

O i see. Then the acharyas like govindabhagavatpada, gaudapada (his karikas

etc.) were all fictitious...

So i understand stand it is sankara who *propounded* advaita.

advaitin , " sureshbalaraman " <sureshbalaraman wrote:

>

> just as gravity existed time immemorial,untill newton postulated laws for us

to understand=so also advaitham existed as it is as non-dual principle darshana

of vedanta.adi-sankara,tried to verbalise the experiance for truth seekers,to

have similiar or identical experiance as he himself was an iswara putra or

swayam bhagavan .....

>

> suresh.

>

> advaitin , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi@> wrote:

> >

> > << There was no Advitha in the Vedic religion/Santan Dharma prior to Sri,

Sankara that is prior to 8th Century. >>

> >

> > One should be VERY VERY VERY careful while making statements like the one

above.

> >

> > Don't make such ridiculous remarks henceforth, my dear. I am really pained

and disturbed to see such remarks.

> >

> > regs,

> > sriram

> >

> > advaitin , " santthoshkumaar " <santthoshkumaar@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sadaji,

> > >

> > > Pranamas,

> > >

> > > Thank you for your reply. I am not misunderstding, what you say on the

> > > standpoint of scriptural authorities, and saying I am right or you are

> > > wrong. I am not doubting or challenging your scriptural mastery. I

> > > respect you and admire your scriptural wisdom. I just saying nondual

> > > truth cannot be proved and realized on the base of scriptures.

> > >

> > > Ashtvakara says that: scriptural knowledge and yoga are not the means to

> > > acquire self-knowledge. Ramana Maharshi was realized the truth without

> > > any scriptures. Buddha rejected religion, scriptures and concept of god

> > > after he found then useless to acquire the truth after thoroughly

> > > verifying their validity. And as one goes into deeper research on

> > > Advitha he finds the fact that Advith is nothing to do with Vedas.

> > >

> > > The present religious Advitha which is based on the Vedas is modified

> > > and introduced by Sri, Sankara to uplift the Santan Dharma, which was in

> > > ruins in the clutches of Buddhism and Jainism. Thus all the preaching of

> > > the religious based Advitha is based on the non-duality and practice is

> > > based on the duality. The spiritual based [which was not based on

> > > Vedas]Advith teaching of Sri, Sankara and Goudpada is lost or destroyed.

> > >

> > > As one goes deeper in research one becomes aware of the fact that

> > > Advith is extension of Buddhism. There was no Advitha in the Vedic

> > > religion/Santan Dharma prior to Sri, Sankara that is prior to 8th

> > > Century. As one goes deeper in research one finds even the original

> > > nondual teaching of Buddha has been lost in time, and present teaching

> > > is mixed and messed with the local and regional religions wherever it

> > > existed. But still we find the traces of Sri, Sankara's and

> > > Buddha's spiritual insights in some of the scriptures.

> > >

> > > Therefore, it is necessary to for the seeker of truth to inquire on his

> > > own and realize the nondual truth without any scriptures in this very

> > > life time, and make sure of Sri.Sankara`s declaration world is myth

> > > and Brahman alone is real.

> > >

> > > Thus by quoting one authority from one scripture, and another authority

> > > from another scripture, and trying to prove and realize the truth is

> > > like, trying to drain the ocean drop by drop.

> > >

> > > As Sri, Ramana Mahaarshi said: scriptural knowledge is conceptual

> > > divisions invented by teachers of philosophy by their excessive

> > > analysis. Where do all these concepts end? Why should confusion created

> > > and then explained away? Fortunate is the man who does not lose him self

> > > in the labyrinths of philosophy, but goes straight to the source from

> > > which they all arise.

> > >

> > > Therefore when Ramana Maharshi indicated the direct path to the truth,

> > > is the source from which the false arises. Thus the source is the soul/

> > > Ataman, which is the true self. Ataman itself is Brahman. Thus it is

> > > necessary to view the worldview on the base of the source, which the

> > > true self, and formless substance and witness of the experience of

> > > diversity. Thus deeper inquiry, analysis and reasoning on the true base,

> > > one can acquire the self –knowledge in lesser time and effort. The

> > > unity in diversity is possible only through self-knowledge not by

> > > mastering the scriptural knowledge.

> > >

> > > With respect and regards.

> > >

> > > Santthosh.

> > >

May 13, 2009

pardon me for my limited vocabulary of english language.since it was adi-sankara

who advertised for adavitham darshanam with absolute mastery,i owed to him for

the propanganda.advaitham is time immemorial.hope this clears your mind

too.thanks.

suresh.

advaitin , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

> O i see. Then the acharyas like govindabhagavatpada, gaudapada (his karikas

etc.) were all fictitious...

>

> So i understand stand it is sankara who *propounded* advaita.

>

> advaitin , " sureshbalaraman " <sureshbalaraman@> wrote:

> >

> > just as gravity existed time immemorial,untill newton postulated laws for us

to understand=so also advaitham existed as it is as non-dual principle darshana

of vedanta.adi-sankara,tried to verbalise the experiance for truth seekers,to

have similiar or identical experiance as he himself was an iswara putra or

swayam bhagavan .....

> >

> > suresh.

> >

> > advaitin , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi@> wrote:

> > >

> > > << There was no Advitha in the Vedic religion/Santan Dharma prior to Sri,

Sankara that is prior to 8th Century. >>

> > >

> > > One should be VERY VERY VERY careful while making statements like the one

above.

> > >

> > > Don't make such ridiculous remarks henceforth, my dear. I am really

pained and disturbed to see such remarks.

> > >

> > > regs,

> > > sriram

> > >

> > > advaitin , " santthoshkumaar " <santthoshkumaar@>

wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sadaji,

> > > >

> > > > Pranamas,

> > > >

> > > > Thank you for your reply. I am not misunderstding, what you say on the

> > > > standpoint of scriptural authorities, and saying I am right or you are

> > > > wrong. I am not doubting or challenging your scriptural mastery. I

> > > > respect you and admire your scriptural wisdom. I just saying nondual

> > > > truth cannot be proved and realized on the base of scriptures.

> > > >

> > > > Ashtvakara says that: scriptural knowledge and yoga are not the means to

> > > > acquire self-knowledge. Ramana Maharshi was realized the truth without

> > > > any scriptures. Buddha rejected religion, scriptures and concept of god

> > > > after he found then useless to acquire the truth after thoroughly

> > > > verifying their validity. And as one goes into deeper research on

> > > > Advitha he finds the fact that Advith is nothing to do with Vedas.

> > > >

> > > > The present religious Advitha which is based on the Vedas is modified

> > > > and introduced by Sri, Sankara to uplift the Santan Dharma, which was in

> > > > ruins in the clutches of Buddhism and Jainism. Thus all the preaching of

> > > > the religious based Advitha is based on the non-duality and practice is

> > > > based on the duality. The spiritual based [which was not based on

> > > > Vedas]Advith teaching of Sri, Sankara and Goudpada is lost or destroyed.

> > > >

> > > > As one goes deeper in research one becomes aware of the fact that

> > > > Advith is extension of Buddhism. There was no Advitha in the Vedic

> > > > religion/Santan Dharma prior to Sri, Sankara that is prior to 8th

> > > > Century. As one goes deeper in research one finds even the original

> > > > nondual teaching of Buddha has been lost in time, and present teaching

> > > > is mixed and messed with the local and regional religions wherever it

> > > > existed. But still we find the traces of Sri, Sankara's and

> > > > Buddha's spiritual insights in some of the scriptures.

> > > >

> > > > Therefore, it is necessary to for the seeker of truth to inquire on his

> > > > own and realize the nondual truth without any scriptures in this very

> > > > life time, and make sure of Sri.Sankara`s declaration world is myth

> > > > and Brahman alone is real.

> > > >

> > > > Thus by quoting one authority from one scripture, and another

authority

> > > > from another scripture, and trying to prove and realize the truth is

> > > > like, trying to drain the ocean drop by drop.

> > > >

> > > > As Sri, Ramana Mahaarshi said: scriptural knowledge is conceptual

> > > > divisions invented by teachers of philosophy by their excessive

> > > > analysis. Where do all these concepts end? Why should confusion created

> > > > and then explained away? Fortunate is the man who does not lose him self

> > > > in the labyrinths of philosophy, but goes straight to the source from

> > > > which they all arise.

> > > >

> > > > Therefore when Ramana Maharshi indicated the direct path to the truth,

> > > > is the source from which the false arises. Thus the source is the soul/

> > > > Ataman, which is the true self. Ataman itself is Brahman. Thus it is

> > > > necessary to view the worldview on the base of the source, which the

> > > > true self, and formless substance and witness of the experience of

> > > > diversity. Thus deeper inquiry, analysis and reasoning on the true base,

> > > > one can acquire the self –knowledge in lesser time and effort. The

> > > > unity in diversity is possible only through self-knowledge not by

> > > > mastering the scriptural knowledge.

> > > >

> > > > With respect and regards.

> > > >

> > > > Santthosh.

> > > >

May 13, 2009

My dear suresh / santosh,

The problem is that some of the people are studying vedanta *on their own* and

drawing their *own conclusions* with undergoing a proper study at the feet of

the satguru / acharya. This sends a wrong signal....

That is why Upanishad vidya is not imparted to every tom, dick & harry.

Hope i am clear.

with regards,

sriram

advaitin , " sureshbalaraman " <sureshbalaraman wrote:

>

> pardon me for my limited vocabulary of english language.since it was

adi-sankara who advertised for adavitham darshanam with absolute mastery,i owed

to him for the propanganda.advaitham is time immemorial.hope this clears your

mind too.thanks.

>

> suresh.

>

> advaitin , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi@> wrote:

> >

> > O i see. Then the acharyas like govindabhagavatpada, gaudapada (his karikas

etc.) were all fictitious...

> >

> > So i understand stand it is sankara who *propounded* advaita.

> >

> > advaitin , " sureshbalaraman " <sureshbalaraman@> wrote:

> > >

> > > just as gravity existed time immemorial,untill newton postulated laws for

us to understand=so also advaitham existed as it is as non-dual principle

darshana of vedanta.adi-sankara,tried to verbalise the experiance for truth

seekers,to have similiar or identical experiance as he himself was an iswara

putra or swayam bhagavan .....

> > >

> > > suresh.

> > >

> > > advaitin , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > << There was no Advitha in the Vedic religion/Santan Dharma prior to

Sri, Sankara that is prior to 8th Century. >>

> > > >

> > > > One should be VERY VERY VERY careful while making statements like the

one above.

> > > >

> > > > Don't make such ridiculous remarks henceforth, my dear. I am really

pained and disturbed to see such remarks.

> > > >

> > > > regs,

> > > > sriram

> > > >

> > > > advaitin , " santthoshkumaar " <santthoshkumaar@>

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Sadaji,

> > > > >

> > > > > Pranamas,

> > > > >

> > > > > Thank you for your reply. I am not misunderstding, what you say on

the

> > > > > standpoint of scriptural authorities, and saying I am right or you are

> > > > > wrong. I am not doubting or challenging your scriptural mastery. I

> > > > > respect you and admire your scriptural wisdom. I just saying nondual

> > > > > truth cannot be proved and realized on the base of scriptures.

> > > > >

> > > > > Ashtvakara says that: scriptural knowledge and yoga are not the means

to

> > > > > acquire self-knowledge. Ramana Maharshi was realized the truth

without

> > > > > any scriptures. Buddha rejected religion, scriptures and concept of

god

> > > > > after he found then useless to acquire the truth after thoroughly

> > > > > verifying their validity. And as one goes into deeper research on

> > > > > Advitha he finds the fact that Advith is nothing to do with Vedas.

> > > > >

> > > > > The present religious Advitha which is based on the Vedas is modified

> > > > > and introduced by Sri, Sankara to uplift the Santan Dharma, which was

in

> > > > > ruins in the clutches of Buddhism and Jainism. Thus all the preaching

of

> > > > > the religious based Advitha is based on the non-duality and practice

is

> > > > > based on the duality. The spiritual based [which was not based on

> > > > > Vedas]Advith teaching of Sri, Sankara and Goudpada is lost or

destroyed.

> > > > >

> > > > > As one goes deeper in research one becomes aware of the fact that

> > > > > Advith is extension of Buddhism. There was no Advitha in the Vedic

> > > > > religion/Santan Dharma prior to Sri, Sankara that is prior to 8th

> > > > > Century. As one goes deeper in research one finds even the original

> > > > > nondual teaching of Buddha has been lost in time, and present teaching

> > > > > is mixed and messed with the local and regional religions wherever it

> > > > > existed. But still we find the traces of Sri, Sankara's and

> > > > > Buddha's spiritual insights in some of the scriptures.

> > > > >

> > > > > Therefore, it is necessary to for the seeker of truth to inquire on

his

> > > > > own and realize the nondual truth without any scriptures in this very

> > > > > life time, and make sure of Sri.Sankara`s declaration world is myth

> > > > > and Brahman alone is real.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thus by quoting one authority from one scripture, and another

authority

> > > > > from another scripture, and trying to prove and realize the truth is

> > > > > like, trying to drain the ocean drop by drop.

> > > > >

> > > > > As Sri, Ramana Mahaarshi said: scriptural knowledge is conceptual

> > > > > divisions invented by teachers of philosophy by their excessive

> > > > > analysis. Where do all these concepts end? Why should confusion

created

> > > > > and then explained away? Fortunate is the man who does not lose him

self

> > > > > in the labyrinths of philosophy, but goes straight to the source from

> > > > > which they all arise.

> > > > >

> > > > > Therefore when Ramana Maharshi indicated the direct path to the truth,

> > > > > is the source from which the false arises. Thus the source is the

soul/

> > > > > Ataman, which is the true self. Ataman itself is Brahman. Thus it is

> > > > > necessary to view the worldview on the base of the source, which the

> > > > > true self, and formless substance and witness of the experience of

> > > > > diversity. Thus deeper inquiry, analysis and reasoning on the true

base,

> > > > > one can acquire the self –knowledge in lesser time and effort. The

> > > > > unity in diversity is possible only through self-knowledge not by

> > > > > mastering the scriptural knowledge.

> > > > >

> > > > > With respect and regards.

> > > > >

> > > > > Santthosh.

> > > > >

May 13, 2009

Shree Sriram - PraNAms - Just on the lighter side -

In the vedic tradition tom, dick and harry become

Devadatta, Yagnadatta, and some other Datta that I do not remember off hand.

Just for info.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--- On Wed, 5/13/09, sriram <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

That is why Upanishad vidya is not imparted to every tom, dick & harry.

Hope i am clear.

with regards,

sriram

May 13, 2009

dear sada,

Namaste. A big lol....

regs,

sriram

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

> Shree Sriram - PraNAms - Just on the lighter side -

> In the vedic tradition tom, dick and harry become

> Devadatta, Yagnadatta, and some other Datta that I do not remember off hand.

Just for info.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

> --- On Wed, 5/13/09, sriram <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

> That is why Upanishad vidya is not imparted to every tom, dick & harry.

>

> Hope i am clear.

>

> with regards,

> sriram

>

May 13, 2009

I think , Harry = Vishnumitra!! (Vaisheshika sutras).

Sunder

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

> Shree Sriram - PraNAms - Just on the lighter side -

> In the vedic tradition tom, dick and harry become

> Devadatta, Yagnadatta, and some other Datta that I do not remember off hand.

Just for info.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

> --- On Wed, 5/13/09, sriram <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

> That is why Upanishad vidya is not imparted to every tom, dick & harry.

>

May 13, 2009

advaitin , " santthoshkumaar " <santthoshkumaar wrote:

>

> As one goes deeper in research one becomes aware of the fact that

> Advith is extension of Buddhism. There was no Advitha in the Vedic

> religion/Santan Dharma prior to Sri, Sankara that is prior to 8th

> Century. As one goes deeper in research one finds even the original

> nondual teaching of Buddha has been lost in time, and present teaching

> is mixed and messed with the local and regional religions wherever it

> existed. But still we find the traces of Sri, Sankara's and

> Buddha's spiritual insights in some of the scriptures.

>

Santoshji,

Please clarify if you have any data to support the two statements

that you made above, or whether they are just your personal beliefs :

1. " Advith is extension of Buddhism " .

2. " There was no Advitha in the Vedic religion/Santan Dharma prior to Sri,

Sankara "

It is true that some of the concepts that Sankara stressed (like

two levels of reality ) has earlier appeared in Nagarjuna's

Madhyamikakarika. But that doesn't mean that Sankara extended

Buddhism to come up with his Advaitic vision. Sankara also endorsed

certain aspects of Sankhya, Poorvamimamsa etc. So, to state that

Sankara's Advaita is just an extension of Buddhism is not really

tenable.

There are several statements in Upanishads which stress on

advaitic vision, including the four mahavakyas. And every historian

accepts that Upanishads existed even before Sri Buddha. So your

second statement also doesn't really seem valid.

>

> With respect and regards.

>

> Santthosh.

>

Regards,

Raj.

May 13, 2009

sriram ji :

thank you.i agree a guru indeed is very nice to have you teach the

scriptures.but ultimately one's self has to swim across the ocean all by himself

only.any vidya should be learnt from proper authorities and that proper

authority becomes guru=remover of avidya or ignorance. isn't it?.

suresh.

advaitin , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

> My dear suresh / santosh,

>

> The problem is that some of the people are studying vedanta *on their own* and

drawing their *own conclusions* with undergoing a proper study at the feet of

the satguru / acharya. This sends a wrong signal....

>

> That is why Upanishad vidya is not imparted to every tom, dick & harry.

>

> Hope i am clear.

>

> with regards,

> sriram

>

> advaitin , " sureshbalaraman " <sureshbalaraman@> wrote:

> >

> > pardon me for my limited vocabulary of english language.since it was

adi-sankara who advertised for adavitham darshanam with absolute mastery,i owed

to him for the propanganda.advaitham is time immemorial.hope this clears your

mind too.thanks.

> >

> > suresh.

> >

> > advaitin , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi@> wrote:

> > >

> > > O i see. Then the acharyas like govindabhagavatpada, gaudapada (his

karikas etc.) were all fictitious...

> > >

> > > So i understand stand it is sankara who *propounded* advaita.

> > >

> > > advaitin , " sureshbalaraman " <sureshbalaraman@>

wrote:

> > > >

> > > > just as gravity existed time immemorial,untill newton postulated laws

for us to understand=so also advaitham existed as it is as non-dual principle

darshana of vedanta.adi-sankara,tried to verbalise the experiance for truth

seekers,to have similiar or identical experiance as he himself was an iswara

putra or swayam bhagavan .....

> > > >

> > > > suresh.

> > > >

> > > > advaitin , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > << There was no Advitha in the Vedic religion/Santan Dharma prior to

Sri, Sankara that is prior to 8th Century. >>

> > > > >

> > > > > One should be VERY VERY VERY careful while making statements like the

one above.

> > > > >

> > > > > Don't make such ridiculous remarks henceforth, my dear. I am really

pained and disturbed to see such remarks.

> > > > >

> > > > > regs,

> > > > > sriram

> > > > >

> > > > > advaitin , " santthoshkumaar " <santthoshkumaar@>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Sadaji,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Pranamas,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thank you for your reply. I am not misunderstding, what you say on

the

> > > > > > standpoint of scriptural authorities, and saying I am right or you

are

> > > > > > wrong. I am not doubting or challenging your scriptural mastery. I

> > > > > > respect you and admire your scriptural wisdom. I just saying

nondual

> > > > > > truth cannot be proved and realized on the base of scriptures.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Ashtvakara says that: scriptural knowledge and yoga are not the

means to

> > > > > > acquire self-knowledge. Ramana Maharshi was realized the truth

without

> > > > > > any scriptures. Buddha rejected religion, scriptures and concept of

god

> > > > > > after he found then useless to acquire the truth after thoroughly

> > > > > > verifying their validity. And as one goes into deeper research on

> > > > > > Advitha he finds the fact that Advith is nothing to do with Vedas.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The present religious Advitha which is based on the Vedas is

modified

> > > > > > and introduced by Sri, Sankara to uplift the Santan Dharma, which

was in

> > > > > > ruins in the clutches of Buddhism and Jainism. Thus all the

preaching of

> > > > > > the religious based Advitha is based on the non-duality and practice

is

> > > > > > based on the duality. The spiritual based [which was not based on

> > > > > > Vedas]Advith teaching of Sri, Sankara and Goudpada is lost or

destroyed.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As one goes deeper in research one becomes aware of the fact that

> > > > > > Advith is extension of Buddhism. There was no Advitha in the Vedic

> > > > > > religion/Santan Dharma prior to Sri, Sankara that is prior to 8th

> > > > > > Century. As one goes deeper in research one finds even the

original

> > > > > > nondual teaching of Buddha has been lost in time, and present

teaching

> > > > > > is mixed and messed with the local and regional religions wherever

it

> > > > > > existed. But still we find the traces of Sri, Sankara's and

> > > > > > Buddha's spiritual insights in some of the scriptures.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Therefore, it is necessary to for the seeker of truth to inquire on

his

> > > > > > own and realize the nondual truth without any scriptures in this

very

> > > > > > life time, and make sure of Sri.Sankara`s declaration world is myth

> > > > > > and Brahman alone is real.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thus by quoting one authority from one scripture, and another

authority

> > > > > > from another scripture, and trying to prove and realize the truth is

> > > > > > like, trying to drain the ocean drop by drop.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As Sri, Ramana Mahaarshi said: scriptural knowledge is conceptual

> > > > > > divisions invented by teachers of philosophy by their excessive

> > > > > > analysis. Where do all these concepts end? Why should confusion

created

> > > > > > and then explained away? Fortunate is the man who does not lose him

self

> > > > > > in the labyrinths of philosophy, but goes straight to the source

from

> > > > > > which they all arise.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Therefore when Ramana Maharshi indicated the direct path to the

truth,

> > > > > > is the source from which the false arises. Thus the source is the

soul/

> > > > > > Ataman, which is the true self. Ataman itself is Brahman. Thus it

is

> > > > > > necessary to view the worldview on the base of the source, which the

> > > > > > true self, and formless substance and witness of the experience of

> > > > > > diversity. Thus deeper inquiry, analysis and reasoning on the true

base,

> > > > > > one can acquire the self –knowledge in lesser time and effort. The

> > > > > > unity in diversity is possible only through self-knowledge not by

> > > > > > mastering the scriptural knowledge.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > With respect and regards.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Santthosh.

> > > > > >

May 14, 2009

Dear Raj Sahebji,

Thank you for your response.

Everyone's inner work leads towards new understanding and

realization. When doubts crops up and when one do not get a reasonable

reasoning for his doubts from the other source, then only he indulges

in his own personal research, and try to investigate, and then only he

becomes aware of the truth. When he goes deeper into the subject so

many things will reveal.

What was the religion our ancestors were following prior to the

introduction of Advith by Sankara and Dwith by other sages? If Sri,

Sankara is the founder of Advitha math in 8th century what was the

religion of our ancestors prior Sri, Sankara. It has to be Santana

Dharma/Vedic religion.

If one reads the Satyarth Prakash of Maharshi Dayanand Sarswati

[1824-1883] a real authenticated authority on Vedas, then he will

become aware of the fact Dwith and Advitha and Vishita Advitha were

add-ons to the Sanatan Dharama/Vedic religion. And if he bifurcate

all the add-ons from Sanatan Dharam and then he becomes aware of the

fact Advitha was modified by Sri,Sankara on the base of Vedas to uplift

the Vedic Dharma which was in the ruins in the clutches of Buddhism to

suit the mind set of that time. Thus by bifurcating the add-ons from

the Sanatan Dharma/Vedic religion[present Hinduism], he will become

aware of the fact that there was no trace of Advith prior to 8th Century

and dwith in later century in Sanatana Dharma/ Vedic religion.

One will also find all the rituals, worship and customs followed by the

present generation also not Vedic based, it is modified add-ons to suit

the mind set of that time. When this truth was revealed by the Maharshi

Dayananda he was poisoned and killed by the pundiths.

I am not advocating Mahrshi Dayananda or the Santana Dharma, I just

saying if one is seeking truth of his true existence, then he has to

look beyond religion, concept of god and scriptures and yoga.

One will also trace the dates of oldest Upanishads and also some idea of

Braminism and Buddhism and Hinduism as per the historian's research

essay on their origins and interaction –BRAMINISM AND BUDDHISM by

Lal Mani Joshi of dept of religious studies Punjab University Patiala.

There are many books of the religious historians on this subject; if one

is ready to go in deeper research without preconceived ideas he will be

able to know, what truth is, and what is untruth. And he will be able to

accept the truth and drop all accumulated dross of untruth.

I am not interested in arguing my claims are tenable and trying to

impose my idea on others. And also I am not trying to prove whether

Buddha is right or Sri, Sankara is wrong. But my only purpose of my

personal research is to know, how to realize the nondual truth, which is

propounded by the Buddha and Sri,Sankara and Sri, Goudpada? Since

present practices are based on conduct and action, and they are based on

the false physical self [ego]. What are the fatter and obstacle in

realize the nondual truth? How to overcome the obstacle on the path of

nondual truth?

In Astavakara[commentaries on Astavakara Gita by Osho] it clearly

mentioned that Vedas are not the means to acquire the self-knowledge.

Thus it indicates that Advith is nothing to do with the Vedas.

Dual and nondual are not religious theories, but the state of the true

self. When the self is in illusion then it is called duality/mind. When

the self is in its formless nondual true nature then it is

Ataman/spirit. Since man[physical body/'I'] is false entity

within the false experience [waking] he views and judges the worldview

on the base of false self, and created all this theories on the base of

false self. Therefore, whatever is seen, known, experienced and believed

on the false base [form base], has to be false hood, on the base of the

true self [formless base]. People limit the mind to limit the physical

entity, and thinks the mind is within the physical body. Whereas the

physical body, ego, the universe altogether is mind. Mind is an

experience, it is not an experincer. Same way as the dream is the mere

experience; the waking also is an experience. The whole experience

[waking/dream] is an object to the formless subject [witness]. One has

to realize the object and subject are one is essence. And that essence

is Ataman/spirit.

Therefore, one has to bifurcate the physicalized Advitha [religious

add-ons] which is meant for the mass mind set, who are incapable

inquire to verifying their inherited beliefs. But for the seekers

truth, to get the pure essence of spiritual Advitha of Sri Sankara and

Sri, Goudpada which is based on the formless soul. The path of inquiry,

analysis and reasoning on the true base, leads towards the nondual

destination. Therefore, there is need to rectify the seeking base from

ego base to soul base.

Bhagvan says: this self –inquiry is not the critical study of the

scriptures. When the source is reached the ego gets merged into it. The

result of self-inquiry is the cure for all the sorrows. It is the

highest of all the results. There is nothing greater then it. It only

indicates there is no necessity to study the scriptures to acquire

self-knowledge. [Page-66-practicle guide to know yourself c/e by A.R.N].

Bhagvan says:

Q by D: Is not necessary to study the Vedas or at least the

Prasthanatraya [the Bhagavad Gita,Dasopanishad and Brahma Sutras, all

with commentaries]to ensure firm realization?

Bhagwan: No. Do you need all that to see yourself? All that is

intellectual wealth, useful in explain doubts and difficulties if others

rise them or if you yourself encounter them in the course of thinking.

But to attain realzatrtion, all that is not necessary. You want fresh

water to drink, but you do not require all the water of the river Ganges

to quench your thirst. [Page 111/112 of Practical guide to know yourself

c/e by A.R.N].

Therefore all the personal research is for making sure which is the

surest and easiest path to acquire self-knowledge, when we are confused

with uncertainty which path easier for to acquire nondual truth or

self-knowledge.

With respect and regards

Santthosh.

advaitin , " rajkumarknair " <rajkumarknair

wrote:

>

> advaitin , " santthoshkumaar " santthoshkumaar@

wrote:

> >

>

> >

> > As one goes deeper in research one becomes aware of the fact that

> > Advith is extension of Buddhism. There was no Advitha in the Vedic

> > religion/Santan Dharma prior to Sri, Sankara that is prior to 8th

> > Century. As one goes deeper in research one finds even the original

> > nondual teaching of Buddha has been lost in time, and present

teaching

> > is mixed and messed with the local and regional religions wherever

it

> > existed. But still we find the traces of Sri, Sankara's and

> > Buddha's spiritual insights in some of the scriptures.

> >

>

> Santoshji,

> Please clarify if you have any data to support the two statements

> that you made above, or whether they are just your personal beliefs :

> 1. " Advith is extension of Buddhism " .

> 2. " There was no Advitha in the Vedic religion/Santan Dharma prior to

Sri, Sankara "

>

> It is true that some of the concepts that Sankara stressed (like

> two levels of reality ) has earlier appeared in Nagarjuna's

> Madhyamikakarika. But that doesn't mean that Sankara extended

> Buddhism to come up with his Advaitic vision. Sankara also endorsed

> certain aspects of Sankhya, Poorvamimamsa etc. So, to state that

> Sankara's Advaita is just an extension of Buddhism is not really

> tenable.

>

> There are several statements in Upanishads which stress on

> advaitic vision, including the four mahavakyas. And every historian

> accepts that Upanishads existed even before Sri Buddha. So your

> second statement also doesn't really seem valid.

>

> >

> > With respect and regards.

> >

> > Santthosh.

> >

>

> Regards,

> Raj.

>

May 15, 2009

praNAms Sri Santhosh prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Though I donot want to be argumentative in this subject, just could not

resist myself from sharing some thoughts with you :

What was the religion our ancestors were following prior to the

introduction of Advith by Sankara and Dwith by other sages? If Sri,

Sankara is the founder of Advitha math in 8th century what was the

religion of our ancestors prior Sri, Sankara. It has to be Santana

Dharma/Vedic religion.

> We the vaidiks have the firm conviction that prior to shankara, right

from the deva mUla (starts from nArAyaNa) have the uninterrupted lineage of

tradition...Though it is acceptable that at the time of shankara there were

no schools like dvaita & vishishtAdvaita (as popularly known now!!)

shankara himself mentions in one of his commentaries that there was

absolutely no dispute among vaidiks with regard to ekatva of Atman...So,

whatever you are calling sanAtana dharma or vedic religion now (prior to

shankara) is nothing of Atmaikatva jnAna of veda-s...So shankara did not

bring anything new to the adhyAtmik world, he just make the vedic geration

to revisit & reopen the treasure of jnAna in veda-s..

If one reads the Satyarth Prakash of Maharshi Dayanand Sarswati

[1824-1883] a real authenticated authority on Vedas, then he will

become aware of the fact Dwith and Advitha and Vishita Advitha were

add-ons to the Sanatan Dharama/Vedic religion.

> You may be right in saying dvaita & vishitAdvaita were add-ons to the

vedic dharma ...but the doctrine of advaita is inherent in veda-s...Anyway,

I've not studied the satyartha prakasha of Swamy dayananada, founder of

Arya samaaji, so I am not able to comment anything about it.

Thus by bifurcating the add-ons from

the Sanatan Dharma/Vedic religion[present Hinduism], he will become

aware of the fact that there was no trace of Advith prior to 8th Century

> gross misunderstanding to say the least!! this is what is there in

satyArtha prakAsha!!?? how can it be said advaita does not exist prior to

shankara, when shankara himself salutes the guru parampara & quotes the

words of saMpradAya vida-s as a reference??

One will also find all the rituals, worship and customs followed by the

present generation also not Vedic based, it is modified add-ons to suit

the mind set of that time.

> Even today what we (vaidiks) follow as rituals, worship etc. are purely

based on veda-s...most of them you can find in brAhmaNa portion of the

veda-s..Kindly dont generalize these things & sweep everything under the

same carpet...

I am not advocating Mahrshi Dayananda or the Santana Dharma, I just

saying if one is seeking truth of his true existence, then he has to

look beyond religion, concept of god and scriptures and yoga.

> When what I am seeking is quite conspicuously avaialble in the vedic

scriptures and for which I have the endorsement from the maharshi-s of

vedic lore, I dont know why should I turn my head in search of someother

alternatives !!

In Astavakara[commentaries on Astavakara Gita by Osho] it clearly

mentioned that Vedas are not the means to acquire the self-knowledge.

Thus it indicates that Advith is nothing to do with the Vedas.

> Kindly pardon me prabhuji, I prefer to read these texts with the

interpretation of Acharaya-s who know the tradtional way of

teaching.....You may prefer Osho as an authority to explain these

texts...you can have your choice...but dont expect us to follow that :-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

May 17, 2009

-

Dear Bhaskarji,

Pranams,

Thank you for your response and wisdom.

The matter of discussion is not directed to question any one's

personal path and practice or belief. As fellow seekers of truth I am

interacting with the list mates, I am not advocating others to accept my

views or imposing my ideas on others. I humbly request to ignore my

views if it is not suiting your mind set. I am not a follower of Osho

or any physical guru, and I believe that the self, itself is the true

guru. Since spiritual path is a very personal path, and seeker of truth

has to share his views and listen what others say and discusses with the

fellow seekers and moves a head in his chosen path.

It is no use arguing Buddha is wrong or Sri Snakara is right, but where

we are going wrong in our understanding the nondual truth, propagated by

the great sages of the past. Some say, that without the sunyvada,

Advitha philosophy could not have come into existence; Because Advith

starts from where sunyavada ends. That is why they say it is extension

of Buddhism. If Advith existed prior to Buddha, he would not have

advocated sunyavada at all because Advith is final and ultimate truth.

Since the Buddhist and Hindu scriptures have been passed down by

hearing. They were written down only relatively late. So one

wouldn't know whether to rely on the times they give. Also, a lot

depends on the translation. Each 'Shloka' or sutta is open to many

layers of interpretation.

As per the religious archeologists view: the date of Sankara may be

taken most correctly as that of the 9th century. Some claims are made in

India that he lived two thousand years ago, but there is absolutely no

proof for this claim. They do not go back farther than the 12th century

A.D. and that all so-called evidences for Sankara having lived two

centuries before Christ are either were conjectures or Pandit's

fabrication.

Regarding the question of Sankara's death, one may dismiss the legend

that he did not die, at the age of 32 but disappeared into a cave. This

is another Pandit's story which is quite unfounded. He did really die in

the Himalayas at that age.

As one go in to the annals of the history, one becomes aware of the fact

that; the spiritual Advith is mixed up with punditry. Therefore there

is a need to do his own research in order to know the true essence of

Advith prefunded by Sri,Sankara and Sri, Gudapada and emptiness of

Buddha .

How it was possible for Sri, Sankara to have written so many books

during such a short term of existence. The fact is that he wrote very

few books. Those actually written by him were Commentaries on Brahma

Sutras and the Upanishads and on the Gita. All other books ascribed to

him were not written down by his own hand.

They are merely collections of notes recorded by his disciples from his

sayings, talks and discussions. Fourthly Sri, Sankara's own Guru was

named Sri, Govinda and he lived near Indore. When Sri,Sankara wrote his

commentary on the Mandukya his guru was so pleased with it that he took

his disciple to the Himalayas to visit his own Sri, Guru who was named

Sri, Goudapada. Only when the latter agreed that the commentary was

perfect did Sri, Govinda release his disciple to start his own mission

of teaching.

Sri, Sankara wrote his Mandukya commentary first, and then as this

revealed that he thoroughly understood the subject, his gurus requested

him to write the commentary on Badarayana's Brahma Sutras, which was a

popular theological work universally studied throughout India. That is

why his commentary is written from a lower dualistic point, for those

who cannot rise higher, save that here and there Sri, Sankara

occasionally has strewn a few truly Advaitic sentences.

Sri,Sankara had only four fully trained disciples, although he advised

some kings. His doctrines spread after his lifetime. His books were

dictated to secretaries as he traveled. So few therefore were capable of

understanding his philosophy.

Nearly all Bengal thinkers hold views of Maya which are entirely

incorrect and untenable. They do not know Sri, Sankara's Upanishad

Bashyas, but only the Brahma Sutra Bashya. Sri, Sankara wrote his

Mandukya commentary on a beautifully situated island called Omkaresvar,

border of Indore State, where Cauvery and Narbadha rivers meet. On this

island there is also a tomb of Sri,Govinda, his guru.

Sankara varied his practical advice and doctrinal teaching according to

the people he was amongst. He never told them to give their particular

religion or beliefs or metaphysics completely; he only told them to give

up the worst features of abuse: at the same time he showed just one step

forward towards the truth.

In Brahma Sutras Sankara says that Brahman is the cause of the world,

whereas in Mandukya he denies it. This is because he says that at the

lower stage of understanding, the former teaching must be given, for

people will get frightened as they cannot understand how the world can

be without a cause, but to those in a higher stage, the truth of

non-causality can be revealed.

Brahma Sutras, i.e. " Vedanta Sutras " by Badarayana, are intended for

those of middling intellects, not for those who have the best brains: it

is a semi-theological, semi-philosophical work; it starts with the

assumption that Brahman exists.

The opening sentence is " All this is Brahman. " But nobody knows or

has seen Brahman. If we say " All this is wood " and show a piece of wood,

the words are understandable. Suppose you have never seen wood. Then

what is the use of such a sentence? It becomes meaningless when the

object indicated is seen by none. Hence the Brahma Sutra opening is

equivalent to " All this is X " . Both have no meaning so long as they are

not understood, if we take them as the data to start from. It is for

this reason that I say the book is intended for theological minds,

because it begins with dogma although its reasoning is close. For it

starts with something imagined.

A man who describes Sankara's philosophy as negative (because of his

Neti, Neti) does not know that this is applied only to the world of the

Seen, the critic ignorantly believes that it is also applied to the

Seer. Vedanta never negates the seer, only the seen. Scriptural mastery

is not wisdom.

As one goes deeper in the subject one becomes aware of the fact that the

religion, scriptures and concept of god is nothing to do with religious

side of Advitha, the present religious based Advitic knowledge and

theories is meant for the mass, who hold the religion as high, not the

truth, because religion is based on the form [body/I] and they view and

judge and argue on the base of body as self, but spiritual Advitha

is based on the formless [soul] and it negates everything other then the

soul.

Therefore as Raman said: All the conceptual divisions invented by

teachers of philosophy by their excessive analysis. Where do all these

concepts end? Why should confusion created and then explained away?

Fortunate is the man who does not lose him self in the labyrinths of

philosophy, but goes straight to the source from which they all arise.

It is better follow the direct path of Ramana, instead of going all

around and coming to same point [sELF/ATAMAN].

With respect and regards

Santthosh

> Though I donot want to be argumentative in this subject, just could

not

> resist myself from sharing some thoughts with you :

>

> What was the religion our ancestors were following prior to the

> introduction of Advith by Sankara and Dwith by other sages? If Sri,

> Sankara is the founder of Advitha math in 8th century what was the

> religion of our ancestors prior Sri, Sankara. It has to be Santana

> Dharma/Vedic religion.

>

> > We the vaidiks have the firm conviction that prior to shankara,

right

> from the deva mUla (starts from nArAyaNa) have the uninterrupted

lineage of

> tradition...Though it is acceptable that at the time of shankara there

were

> no schools like dvaita & vishishtAdvaita (as popularly known now!!)

> shankara himself mentions in one of his commentaries that there was

> absolutely no dispute among vaidiks with regard to ekatva of

Atman...So,

> whatever you are calling sanAtana dharma or vedic religion now (prior

to

> shankara) is nothing of Atmaikatva jnAna of veda-s...So shankara did

not

> bring anything new to the adhyAtmik world, he just make the vedic

geration

> to revisit & reopen the treasure of jnAna in veda-s..

>

> If one reads the Satyarth Prakash of Maharshi Dayanand Sarswati

> [1824-1883] a real authenticated authority on Vedas, then he will

> become aware of the fact Dwith and Advitha and Vishita Advitha were

> add-ons to the Sanatan Dharama/Vedic religion.

>

> > You may be right in saying dvaita & vishitAdvaita were add-ons to

the

> vedic dharma ...but the doctrine of advaita is inherent in

veda-s...Anyway,

> I've not studied the satyartha prakasha of Swamy dayananada, founder

of

> Arya samaaji, so I am not able to comment anything about it.

>

> Thus by bifurcating the add-ons from

> the Sanatan Dharma/Vedic religion[present Hinduism], he will become

> aware of the fact that there was no trace of Advith prior to 8th

Century

>

> > gross misunderstanding to say the least!! this is what is there in

> satyArtha prakAsha!!?? how can it be said advaita does not exist

prior to

> shankara, when shankara himself salutes the guru parampara & quotes

the

> words of saMpradAya vida-s as a reference??

>

> One will also find all the rituals, worship and customs followed by

the

> present generation also not Vedic based, it is modified add-ons to

suit

> the mind set of that time.

>

> > Even today what we (vaidiks) follow as rituals, worship etc. are

purely

> based on veda-s...most of them you can find in brAhmaNa portion of the

> veda-s..Kindly dont generalize these things & sweep everything under

the

> same carpet...

>

> I am not advocating Mahrshi Dayananda or the Santana Dharma, I just

> saying if one is seeking truth of his true existence, then he has to

> look beyond religion, concept of god and scriptures and yoga.

>

> > When what I am seeking is quite conspicuously avaialble in the

vedic

> scriptures and for which I have the endorsement from the maharshi-s of

> vedic lore, I dont know why should I turn my head in search of

someother

> alternatives !!

>

> In Astavakara[commentaries on Astavakara Gita by Osho] it clearly

> mentioned that Vedas are not the means to acquire the self-knowledge.

> Thus it indicates that Advith is nothing to do with the Vedas.

>

> > Kindly pardon me prabhuji, I prefer to read these texts with the

> interpretation of Acharaya-s who know the tradtional way of

> teaching.....You may prefer Osho as an authority to explain these

> texts...you can have your choice...but dont expect us to follow that

:-))

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

> bhaskar

>

May 17, 2009

namaskaram,

that is one very very interesting post, i must say.

Santtoshkumar has explained so many things in there. Hinduism, Buddhism,

history, Shankara and his life span and how could he write so many books ...and

what not.

He has also made a very great remark that he is not a follower of any " physical

guru "

and he is his own guru.

Then he comes out with " his interpretation " how others could have interpretted

various things differently, etc.

all very good.

However, would Shri Santtoshkumar tell laymen like me how can I know if

" interpretations by Santtoshkumar too not misinterpretations? "

Today, for Santtoshkumar to write this much long post, he had to spend so many

years

in a school, after he got his early " education " from his parents or guardians

and others around him? In otherwords, whatever Santtoshkumar today is because

of so many many others and that is exactly the reason if Santtoshkumar explains

something one way or the other, that is also because of *his understanding of

interpretations he has picked up from so many others*.

However, when we pickup interpretations, we do test it on the basis of the

knowledge already gained and see if it contradicts other means of knowledge.

That is process of learning and growth.

So, it does not matter what any one says, as long as we are in a position to

validate our understanding on the basis of the knowledge that we have gained .

Interestingly

with this process, the one who goes thru test has no difficulty to correct

him/herself

when that interpretation does not stand to the test.

So, own guru needs to be relooked at. Add to that, how self guru

will know the meanings of various terms used in Veda / Vedanta?

If Ramana or a few others could be own guru, we can try to find out how

that was possible, but is it not very difficult to generalize on the basis of

exceptions?

cheers

namaskaram

ram mohan

--- On Sun, 17/5/09, santthoshkumaar <santthoshkumaar wrote:

santthoshkumaar <santthoshkumaar

Re: re;

advaitin

Sunday, 17 May, 2009, 2:47 PM