Guest guest Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Dear Putranji, Pranams I think you raised a very important point: Quote: Sri Appayya Dikshitar's conclusion is: All the Four Acharyas of these Major Four Schools of Vedanta are Persons with the similar Realization of the Truth. Yet they differed from each other only with a view to address their systems to seekers of varied capacities. IMO any authentic master can present truth uncompromisingly and be lucky in attracting seekers who are able to absorb it that way. Some masters were quite unlucky in that respect, I guess Jesus was one of them, he got disciples with very limited abilities. If teaching is in his prarabdha, he has to find ways to filter truth into their limited minds. He has to present it in a certain way, in his case in a dualistic way. Other teachers might be presented with disciples who will open up with the concept of emptiness or with the concept of fullness or with whatever. The acharya will make use of what he gets and will out of compassion (and as truth is beyond concepts anyway), filter truth itself. Or give it only in diluted form. This does not make understanding the differences between religions or philosophies clearly, superfluous. It helps one to find the teaching that is most conducive to ones own state of mind. Still, in the end, I would absolutely agree with the above conclusion Sri Appayya Dikshitarji makes. Om Shanti Sitara advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote: > > advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:> > > > > A swamiji of the RKMission told me personally. I might have >misunderstood; but he said regarding Shankara and Ramanuja having >same realization, and the differences in their assertions of Truth >having to do with semantics, etc. for the most part. > > > A respected former member sent the following in private email. This is a different topic from this thread, which I probably should have avoided raising. However the following has to be considered. > > Quote > > ... The following link carries a talk by Ved.Br.Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal in Tamil on the 'chatur mata saamarasyam'. Sri Appayya Dikshitar in an exclusive work titled 'chatur mata saara sangrahaH' has worked out the reconciliation of the four chief schools: Advaita, Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita and Shivaadvaita. The main theme of this work has been further condensed by a great scholar: Sri Polagam Rama Sastrigal. It is his short work that is being lectured upon in this talk. I hope you will find this talk very useful. > > Sri Appayya Dikshitar's conclusion is: All the Four Acharyas of these Major Four Schools of Vedanta are Persons with the similar Realization of the Truth. Yet they differed from each other only with a view to address their systems to seekers of varied capacities. > ... > > http://www.advaita-vedanta.info/player.php?lecturer=mds & f=Special%20Lectures/CMS\ _MD%20on%2023rd%20oct%2007%20dss.mp3 > > END QUOTE > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 advaitin , " Sitara " <smitali17 wrote: > > Dear Putranji, > > Pranams > > I think you raised a very important point: > > Quote: Sri Appayya Dikshitar's conclusion is: All the Four Acharyas of these Major Four Schools of Vedanta are Persons with the similar Realization of the Truth. Yet they differed from each other only with a view to address their systems to seekers of varied capacities. > > Sitaraji, thanks for the comments. Sri Dikshitar has made the issue only more interesting since he is accepted in our Sampradaya; I have to hear that lecture still. I doubt if the dvaitins will accept his conclusion - but I may be wrong there as well. Anyway, from a personal standpoint, I accept Sri Dikshitar's and your assessments of this topic. But it is a subjective (and pleasing) one which I do not think is justified in stressing too much in formal settings - after all, you can guess, Jesus's followers will not like to be assessed as having " limited abilities " , for that becomes another way of saying that his teachings as they understand are not the 'highest' truths. (Not sure if Dikshitar meant in this sense, however). Also, a Vedantin's concern should not be about saving the image of personalities - they stand for their sampradaya and interpretation of Sruti; the latter alone is our real concern even when we talk about the Gurus and what they realized. Many get sidelined here, sometimes. Anyway, I hope this topic does not get blown up again on Dikshitar's account. At least, I will keep quiet if it does. Thanks again. thollmelukaalkizhu > IMO any authentic master can present truth uncompromisingly and be lucky in attracting seekers who are able to absorb it that way. > > Some masters were quite unlucky in that respect, I guess Jesus was one of them, he got disciples with very limited abilities. If teaching is in his prarabdha, he has to find ways to filter truth into their limited minds. He has to present it in a certain way, in his case in a dualistic way. > > Other teachers might be presented with disciples who will open up with the concept of emptiness or with the concept of fullness or with whatever. The acharya will make use of what he gets and will out of compassion (and as truth is beyond concepts anyway), filter truth itself. Or give it only in diluted form. > > > This does not make understanding the differences between religions or philosophies clearly, superfluous. It helps one to find the teaching that is most conducive to ones own state of mind. > > Still, in the end, I would absolutely agree with the above conclusion Sri Appayya Dikshitarji makes. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Namaste Sitara-ji. I admire your liberalism. However, stalwarts among the current crop of Shankara followers don't share it. They simply can't accept the " all roads lead to Rome " business. If you include the Jesus road among the alternatives, then you will have a very big problem, when even the local Buddha and Mahaveera streets are taboo. None of them accept Vedas as pramANa is another big impediment. Dikshitar's was a cry in wilderness! Best regards. Madathil Nair ___________________ advaitin , " Sitara " <smitali17 wrote: >> Some masters were quite unlucky in that respect, I guess Jesus was one of them, he got disciples with very limited abilities. > > > Still, in the end, I would absolutely agree with the conclusion Sri Appayya Dikshitarji makes. _________________ > advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote: > > Sri Appayya Dikshitar's conclusion is: All the Four Acharyas of these Major Four Schools of Vedanta are Persons with the similar Realization of the Truth. Yet they differed from each other only with a view to address their systems to seekers of varied capacities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 praNAms Hare Krishna They simply can't accept the " all roads lead to Rome " business. > Yes, even Sri Shankara bhagavatpAda for that matter!! If all theories driving us to the 'same' practical experience (this itself is a subject for lengthy deliberation among various theistic schools) , why on the earth we should fight each other in the name of 'doctrine' (siddhAnta) ?? shankara seen problems in baudha's kshaNikavAda, vijnAna vAda, shUnyavAda...Sri ramAnuja has noticed problem in advaitin's mAyAvAda, avidyA and ekAtma vAda...so, was the point raised & refuted by madhvAchArya...By the way, I donot know, from which stand point (vyAvahArik or pAramArthik) they have noticed these problems in other's presentation :-)) One should think, if all these noble souls' realization is one and the same, then they should have come up with a doctrine that insists more on the ultimate realization part (ultimately that is what matters is it not??) and less on the theoritical part..but what we are seeing today in their works is completely otherway round!! Is this due to their incapability to express their realization in appropriate terms or is it because of untoward influence of their overpowered intellectual mind over & above the realization :-)) Anyway, I, for the one, donot want to to 'all-embracing' approach to reality...you can call me dogmatic, I dont mind :-)) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Dear Putranji, dear Nairji Pranams Putranji, I did not mean to put Jesus followers down. I was referring only to the first ones, who as far as I know, were all simple people with uneducted minds. They certainly were good people, after all they did recognize Jesus and were ready to accept his conditions of disciplehood (which were quite strict). But their minds were untrained. You certainly could not have discussed philosophical issues with them. Today things look very different - in positive as well as negative respect. But I don`t want to go into any more detail about this. Nairji, I am not sure whether I got all the subtleties of your remarks. Anyway, concerning quote : the stalwarts among the current crop of Shankara followers I don't know whether I even know them or their respective position. What I know is my own truth and where I find it mirrored. And even if it might be wrong, I trust it, until it is proved to me that it is wrong. This is what I learned from my first Guru of more than 20 years, and I am deeply deeply thankful for it - for though he was not an advaitin teacher, the assimilation of his teaching has directed me to the truth of Advaita Vedanta. Om Shanti, Sitara advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > Namaste Sitara-ji. > > I admire your liberalism. > > However, stalwarts among the current crop of Shankara followers don't share it. They simply can't accept the " all roads lead to Rome " business. If you include the Jesus road among the alternatives, then you will have a very big problem, when even the local Buddha and Mahaveera streets are taboo. None of them accept Vedas as pramANa is another big impediment. > > Dikshitar's was a cry in wilderness! > > Best regards. > > Madathil Nair > ___________________ > > > advaitin , " Sitara " <smitali17@> wrote: > >> Some masters were quite unlucky in that respect, I guess Jesus was one of them, he got disciples with very limited abilities. > > > > > Still, in the end, I would absolutely agree with the conclusion Sri Appayya Dikshitarji makes. > _________________ > > > advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote: > > > Sri Appayya Dikshitar's conclusion is: All the Four Acharyas of these Major Four Schools of Vedanta are Persons with the similar Realization of the Truth. Yet they differed from each other only with a view to address their systems to seekers of varied capacities. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 2009/5/30 Peter <not_2: > > Yes, it's a puzzle to me that Gaudapada and Sankara (in his commentary on > Gaudapada's Karika) do so - especially with very little analysis of what > those school's maintain. For example, dismissing the entire Madhyamika > school as arch-nihilists without a single reference to Shentong Madhymaka. As I pointed out in an earlier mail, we often think that we have precisely understood the intent of a Gaudapada or a Shankara when we might only be projecting our own views onto their writings. 'Nihilist' is not a Sanskrit word. > Dismissing the views of other schools of thought seems to have been an > established formality in those days. It is as if each school sought to > higlight just one or two aspects of the opposing school(s) with which to > create a caricature relatively easy to dismiss. I have read buddhist > commentaries that dismiss Advaita, Samkhya, and opposing schools of buddhism > in a similar fashion. > > The aspects of similarity and agreement between the two schools are omitted. Actually the polemical texts focus on the differences for a very simple reason - the similarities already exist in the background and are the reason why doubts arise in the first place. > > Just like Gaudapada and Sankara's commentary, Nagarjuna (who composed his > Mulamadhymaka Karika many years earlier) disputes the reality of objects. > Nagarjuna's views on non-origination and Gaudapada's views on ajatavada have > many similarities in their arguments, which is why some people assert the > influence of Buddhism on the Karika. > Yes, there is non-origination in both traditions, which is why the question arises as to whether they are both the same. The Bauddha-s say that Reality is free from the pairs of opposites (the essence of the middle path), including the extremes of eternalism and nihilism. The Advaitin accepts thus far, and merely goes on to say - " and that Reality which is free from the pairs of opposites is YOU " And thus the debate continues. -- santoá¹£aḥ paramo lÄbhaḥ satsaá¹…gaḥ paramÄ gatiḥ I vicÄraḥ paramaá¹ jñÄnaá¹ Å›amo hi paramaá¹ sukham II - Yoga VÄsiá¹£á¹ha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Dikshitar's was a cry in wilderness! praNAms Hare Krishna I think Sri appayya deekshita has tried to reconcile the differences within the traditional school of advaita vedanta like bhAmati & vivaraNa...I dont think he has tried to reconcile the differences among dvaita, advaita and vishishtAdvaita...I am saying this keeping texts like siddhAnta lesha saMgraha, siddhAnta kalpavalli etc. in mind...Sri Sastri prabhuji any help on this topic?? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Dear Putran-ji, On Nagarjuna's advaya being " dvyanta mukta " whereas the Vedantic advaya/advaita being " dvitiyam nasti " : It must be noted that the Vedantic advaya/advaita automatically implies dvyanta mukta as well, though it is more commonly to mean dvitiyam nasti. This is because Brahman is dvyanta mukta! Now in Nagarjuna's teaching, what is it that is dvyanta mukta? I suppose the response would be " Reality is dvyanta mukta " , or " Truth is dvyanta mukta " . Now if we add " And that Reality is YOU " , it becomes Vedanta. If you look at the classical Vedantic texts, you will note two categories. There are the teaching texts, such as the Bhashya-s. Then there are texts that are like the expressions of a jivanmukta. A classic example is the first chapter of the Ribhu Gita. Some portions of the Mandukya are also like this. These are the texts which talk purely in terms of ajativada and will contain expressions such as: It is neither cause nor effect It is neither bound nor free It is neither sat nor asat It is neither dR^ik nor dR^ishya It is neither saguNa nor nirguNa and so forth. The dvyanta mukta aspect comes out very clearly here. -- santoá¹£aḥ paramo lÄbhaḥ satsaá¹…gaḥ paramÄ gatiḥ I vicÄraḥ paramaá¹ jñÄnaá¹ Å›amo hi paramaá¹ sukham II - Yoga VÄsiá¹£á¹ha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 dear bhaskar, What about *chatur-mata-sara-samgraha* of Shri Dikshitar? regs, sriram advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > > Dikshitar's was a cry in wilderness! > > > praNAms > > > Hare Krishna > > > I think Sri appayya deekshita has tried to reconcile the differences within > the traditional school of advaita vedanta like bhAmati & vivaraNa...I dont > think he has tried to reconcile the differences among dvaita, advaita and > vishishtAdvaita...I am saying this keeping texts like siddhAnta lesha > saMgraha, siddhAnta kalpavalli etc. in mind...Sri Sastri prabhuji any help > on this topic?? > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > > bhaskar > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Dear Peter-ji/Mouna-ji/Krishnamurthy-ji and others Thank you for your messages. The Vedas decalre there is one Self that is Eternal, that is Existence, and is Consciousness. Do the Buddhists from any of the numerous schools accept this? If they dont then this entire facade that is being erected of equating the two opposed philosophies crumbles. In trying to erect such a facade one per force has to gloss over some very fundamental issues about - how knowledge takes place? - what is the means to knowledge? - what is error and what causes error? - causality and codependence of origination or lack thereof? - the nature and " existence " of God or Ishwara? the nature of the individual soul or atma? what is liberation - its locus, its content, its fruit? is realization personal? One cannot simply use the cloak of ajativada or some other paramarthic standpoint, and push all these issues under it. What I have done in my message is merely provided a reference to what Bhagwan Shankara has unequivocally written about both Buddhism and the Buddha Himself. When He condemns Buddhism and says " sikatakupavadvidiryate " ...... " it crumbles like a well dug in sand. " or categorically condemns the Buddha, I personally, do not have the audacity to question this, nor dismiss it on the grounds that it sounds " fundamentalist " and unpalatable, nor do I find the need to explain it away by saying thet He misunderstood Buddhism. If we mere ego-centric mortals recognize that " all roads lead to Rome " , and that liberation cannot be the exquisite or exclusive privilege limited to only astikas " believers in the VedAs " , should not Bhagwan Shankara, a paramajnAni, have also had this same accomodating insight? Why the need to spend a significant portion of his bhashyas on painstakingly refuting the Buddhists and other nastikA views, and actually condeming the same outright and in unequivocal terms?? Adi Shankara states categorically " Brahman is known independently only through the Shastra, the valid means of its knowledge,..the Vedanta textx purport to teach it exclusively " Also as I quoted in my earlier post - " But knowledge of Reality springs from the Upanisadic texts alone, as is stated in such passages as " One who is not versed in the Vedas cannot reflect on the Great Enetity " (- Tai Br 3.12.9.7) - so I find it surprising that someone would assert that the issue of Vedanta as a pramana is not fully accepted by " all schools of advaita " - any one disputing this can only do so at the cost of contradicting Adi Shankara Himself. Also Mouna-ji, E=mc2 is a fact - if asserted it is not fundamentalism - " knowledge cannot take place without a valid means of knowledge " - this is a fact. Stating this fact is not the same as asserting without any shred of logic - " Believe in Christ your one true savior or else you will suffer eternal damnation (from a loving God) " is fundamentalism - I hope the difference is clear. If you feel knowledge can take place without a valid means of knowledge, then you need to posit how such knowledge can take place? how does one judge the validity of the same? or if not, then postulate how another pramana, besides the Shruti, can be operational in revealing knowledge about the Self. When you talk about Ramana Maharshi, I have previously shown a direct quotations where he acknowledges the Vedas to be the original source from which is derived knowledge of the Self by all Masters. If the validity of a teaching is based on the belief that its originator was " Realized " then we are left with no choice but to freely choose to follow one of a million different teachings, all of which of course would have the same validity. The sad consequences of such misguided fanaticism is only too obvious for me to spell out. Accomodating other people's religious beliefs has ever been the hallmark of Sanatana Dharma - I accept another person's right to harbor a set of beliefs - it does not mean I accept his set of beliefs as being equivalent to mine! We in this forum are here to understand Advaita based on the teachings of a tradition that has been handed down to us by Adi Shankara. The teaching tradition has been faithfully handed down across the generations with no loss of integrity nor message nor efficacy. If someone feels that " institutions start flowering around that focus mainly in the literal level (or first steps) of such teachings, churches/faiths/philosophies of all kinds loosing the actual meaning of the actual teaching " holds true for this sampradaya as well, then the onus is on that individual to substantiate this kind of a malicious charge. If someone comes to Advaita from Buddhism, or any other spiritual tradition, I suggest, that we do him a greater service by first pointing out the ground realities, including what Shankara's views on Buddhism were, and then leaving it to the individual (and perhaps his fate!) as to where he wants to pitch in his affinities instead of erecting fragile bridges that cruble when stepped on, and perhaps lead to a no-mans land. Lastly, all spiritual practices are based on the common premise of lightening one's ego and empowering the soul to get closer to the Divine. And in this sense, every spiritual tradition, whatever be its basis, is valid in its own realm. A Buddhist monk thus shares all the values of ahimsa, amanitvam, etc as an Advaitic sannyasi as would a devout Christian or Sufi saint - there is no question that a mere intellectual understanding of Vedanta, bereft of a transformation of one's persona, would pale into complete insignificance, when compared to the treasurehouse of shatsampatti and the consequent spiritual insights and upliftments acquired by each of these diverese practices, and I fully and humbly acknoweldge and appreciate that. And it is precisely for this reason, that I feel it is best to leave people to their own belief systems and traditions, and encourage them to focus on its devout practices, be that chanting a rosary or developing virtues, etc and only help them understand the nuances of Advaita, if and only if, they genuinely are ready, rather than hashing out a contrived synthesis, which doesn't remain faithful to any tradition. Hari OM Shyam advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > > Dear Shyam-ji, > From your email below I get the impression this is not important to you, > bearing in mind you have dismissed the validity of any and all spiritual > paths that do not first accept the Vedas. > > > With best wishes, > > Peter > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 PraNAms to all Discussion has been interesting from the general principle that advaita by definition is beyond any dvaita or concepts or conceptualization of the truth. I consider Vedanta as pramANa or means of knowledge for one very good reason. For me it is a science like physics or chemistry - science of absolute truth that transcends space, time and objectivity or desa, kaala, vastu parichhinna atiitam or rahitam. Hence it is not centered on any individual or person or prophet or even God. Shree Sastriji recently echoed these statements too why we respect Buddha as incarnation of Vishnu but do not follow his teachings while we respect Krishna also but follow him since the Krishna's teaching echoes the Vedanta. If Buddha’s teaching are in line with Vedanta irrespective claims or contrary claims, objections or lack of them, the science is science, whether one agrees with it or not. If one extracts the same meaning out of the teaching, that meaning if in tune with Vedanta then it is about the fact only. Hence it is not the individuals that are pertinent but the teaching and if it echoes the science of reality - Vedanta then it is accepted and if it is not then it is not. It is as simple as that. Whether it can be Krishna, Buddha, Bhagavaan Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Mehar baaba, Shiridi baaba, or Satya sai baaba, or any other one that is considered as Bhagavan - it is not the individuals and we resent any formation of any cult around any individual but the teacher is revered for the teaching of the fact - the facts are Brahma satyam Jagat mithyaa Jiivo brahma eva naaparaH Swaatma darshanam eve Iswara darshanam - says Ramana in tune with the advaitic doctrin - vision of oneself is the vision of God - but that oneself is the self in all - aitadaatyma idagam sarvam, tat satyam, sa aatmaa, tat tvam asi, svetaketo - The essence of everything and anything is the essential existence-consciousness principle that you are - saya MuDaka. The rest of the conversion, I think, he thinks, we think etc have from the point of absolute reality, is what Bhagavaan Ramana calls as mudaa vivaadaH. What is important is to turn our attention to that because of which we have the capacity to think or not to think - that alone is the absolute truth which is beyond the presence or absence of any thing or everything and which underlies all the thinking and not thinking. Yan manasaa na manute, yenaahur manomatam - tadeva brahma tvam viddhi nedam yadidam upaasate - says Kena - it is that which mind cannot think but because of which mind has the capacity to think, know that alone is Brahman not this that you worship. Let us invoke or recognize that advaita which is pure ever present ever conscious ever full Brahman that we are. All are in us, but none are in us. That is the beauty of this creation. Us is only a royal We here, since it is raja vidyaa! That is where all isms merge and disapper - including non-dualism. Hari Om! Sadananda Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 In advaitin , " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote: > Also Mouna-ji,... Dear ShyamJi PraNams I was going to write a long response to your recent posting, but Sri Sadaji's most recent one (#45451) put me in perspective as to what priorities one should keep in all aspects of one's moments in life, so I decided to back up and present my apologies if my statements were not clear enough (or not solid enough) to present my point of view. Nevertheless I have a brief remark regarding your statement: > When you talk about Ramana Maharshi, I have previously shown a direct quotations where he acknowledges the Vedas to be the original source from which is derived knowledge of the Self by all Masters. I just want to make the observation that although I missed your direct quotations (one day I would kindly request you to send them to me again), Bhagavan Ramana on one occasion pointed out, as the essence of Vedanta, two phrases that happen to be... biblical statements! " I am that I AM " and " Be still and know that I am God " . To my understanding, this demonstrates that He was definitely not bound to any sampradaya, but rather knew what " tool " worked better for every specific situation, no matter what brand fabricated it. Anyhow, I decided to follow His advice in this moment. Thanks for the discussion, Yours in Bhagavan, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 --- On Mon, 6/1/09, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: Swaatma darshanam eve Iswara darshanam - says Ramana in tune with the advaitic doctrin - vision of oneself is the vision of God - but that oneself is the self in all - aitadaatyma idagam sarvam, tat satyam, sa aatmaa, tat tvam asi, svetaketo - The essence of everything and anything is the essential existence-conscious ness principle that you are - saya MunDaka. ----------- The last quote is from Ch. Up and not from MunDaka for those who are particular. It is also satifying to know that Krishna says in Giita - I am also the cause for the forgetfulness! - If anybody is particular to know where he says this, I have to dig up the Giita slokas. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Dear Shyam-ji, Mouna-ji, Sada-ji and others: Thank you for writing with such wonderful eloquence, insight, and logic. Bhagavan Ramana did indeed say that Vedas are the means of knowledge of the Self. He also stated that essence of Vedanta is found in " I am that I AM " and " Be still and know that I am God " . It is well known to the devotees that Bhagavan is not a traditional advaitin. When asked which Ashram he belonged to, he replied clearly " Beyond all Ashrams " . Bhagavan's teaching is entirely based on Advaita as that was his own Realization. When he felt that the Advaitic realization was also reflected in certain statements in other scriptures and sages, he simply pointed that out. For Self-Realization, faith in the words of the Guru play a critical role. Hearing the Mahavakya from the Guru, if there is complete faith, the student is unable to contradict the Guru, all doubts vanish resulting in Realization. We have all heard the story of King Janaka. His Guru said, " Stop! " Janaka was about the climb on the horse. But on hearing the Guru say " Stop " ! and obeying the Guru and surrendering completely, Janaka stopped. His body and mind stopped. Everything stopped. Thus having complete faith led to Self-Realization. Namaste and love to all Yours in Bhagavan Harsha advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Mouna Tuesday, June 02, 2009 2:33 AM advaitin Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism In advaitin , " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote: > Also Mouna-ji,... Dear ShyamJi PraNams I was going to write a long response to your recent posting, but Sri Sadaji's most recent one (#45451) put me in perspective as to what priorities one should keep in all aspects of one's moments in life, so I decided to back up and present my apologies if my statements were not clear enough (or not solid enough) to present my point of view. Nevertheless I have a brief remark regarding your statement: > When you talk about Ramana Maharshi, I have previously shown a direct quotations where he acknowledges the Vedas to be the original source from which is derived knowledge of the Self by all Masters. I just want to make the observation that although I missed your direct quotations (one day I would kindly request you to send them to me again), Bhagavan Ramana on one occasion pointed out, as the essence of Vedanta, two phrases that happen to be... biblical statements! " I am that I AM " and " Be still and know that I am God " . To my understanding, this demonstrates that He was definitely not bound to any sampradaya, but rather knew what " tool " worked better for every specific situation, no matter what brand fabricated it. Anyhow, I decided to follow His advice in this moment. Thanks for the discussion, Yours in Bhagavan, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Hari Om! Pranams ! mattaH smritirjnAnamapohanam ca - BG 15.15 Br.Pranipata Chaitanya --- On Mon, 6/1/09, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: It is also satifying to know that Krishna says in Giita - I am also the cause for the forgetfulness! - If anybody is particular to know where he says this, I have to dig up the Giita slokas. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Dear Shyam-ji, The following thoughts came up in my mind when I read your post. This is only by way of supplement to what you have said and not any criticism. I agree with you that the upanishads lay down a systematic path for the attainment of Self-knowledge. I however doubt whether we can say that this is the only means for attaining this. In recent times Nisragatta Maharaj and Ma Amritanandamayi who were both practically illiterate attained this knowledge. Ramana Maharshi did not study the upanishads before he attained knowledge. Kath. up. 2.3.14 says that when all the desires clinging to one's heart fall, then the mortal becomes immortal and attains brahman. The next mantra says that a mortal becomes immortal when all the knots of the heart are destroyed. It is also said that liberation is not attained by study alone, but it is attained by the one whom God chooses (yamaiveSha vRiNute tena labhyaH). We do not know whom God chooses and on what criteria. It is all his lila. That is the only way we can explain the attainment of knowledge by Nisargatta Maharaj, Ma Amritanandamayi and others. We know people who have mastered the vedas and the bhAShyas and all the sub-commentaries and can give beautiful discourses, but they are only scholars and not jnAnis. When we read some of the statements of Jesus and some of the Sufis it appears that they too had attained the advaitic realization. Now, if we say that shravaNam is the only means of attaining knowledge, what is shravaNam and who are entitled to it? There are different views. br. up. 4.4.22 says that the desire for Self-knowledge arises through vedAnuvachana, yajna, giving of gifts, etc. This implies, if we go strictly, that the study of the entire vedas, including karma kANDa and performance of vedic rituals are necessary pre-requisites. By this test people like you and me will not be eligible to do shravNam. There is a view that shravaNam will be effective only if you study the Sanskrit works themselves and not translations. Moreover, they say that you cannot get realization if you study the upanishads sitting in a chair and wearing pants. You must wear a dhoti (panchakaccham in the case of grihastas) with upper cloth and no stitched garment, sit on the floor cross-legged, chant the shanti mantras as is being done in Sankaragurukulam and the Sanskrit College in Chennai and then listen to the teacher who expounds the upanishad. This is shravaNam according to them. You and I do not satisfy any of these conditions and so according to these views what we are doing is not really shravaNam. Moreover, according to Shri Shankara himself, persons who do not belong to the first three castes are not entitled to study the vedas, including the upanishads. They have to study only the puranas, etc. If such a means which is different from shravaNam can lead to Self-knowledge, why cannot there be other means of knowledge also for those belonging to other traditions? When we say that brahman is the only reality and all jivas are brahman, it follows that every jiva, whether Indian or Westerner or African, is brahman. Otherwise we will be making brahman limited. Since every human being is brahman, God must have provided some means by which those who do not belong to the vedic tradition can also realize that they are brahman. It cannot be that God has favoured only the Hindus with the means for attaining Self-knowledge. So all that I wish to say is that we cannot say that there is only one way by which Self-knowledge will dawn. Ultimately it is all God's will as to who gets knowledge and how. Shri Shankara says in his bhAShya on brahma sUtra 2.3.41 that liberation is attained only through God's grace. And according to us God is only one for the whole world, whether other religions accept it or not. Best wishes, S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Dear Sri Sastry garu - PraNamams Thank you for this wonderful posting. Have few doubts... advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > >I however doubt whether we can say that this is the only means for attaining this. In recent times Nisragatta Maharaj and Ma >Amritanandamayi who were both practically illiterate attained this knowledge. Ramana Maharshi did not study the >upanishads before >he attained knowledge. Is it possible that what we call Ramana, Nisargatta, etc are the names of the last forms of the souls before they broke the cycle. In previous lives could they have acquired this Knowledge through the study of Vedas...? If that is so, then there is no path to realization outside Vedas.. Thank you very much Sudhesh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 advaitin , " Sudesh Pillutla " <sudeshpillutla wrote: > > Dear Sri Sastry garu - PraNamams > > Thank you for this wonderful posting. Have few doubts... > > advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri@> wrote: > > > >I however doubt whether we can say that this is the only means for > attaining this. In recent times Nisragatta Maharaj and Ma > >Amritanandamayi who were both practically illiterate attained this > knowledge. Ramana Maharshi did not study the >upanishads before > >he attained knowledge. > > Is it possible that what we call Ramana, Nisargatta, etc are the names > of the last forms of the souls before they broke the cycle. In previous > lives could they have acquired this Knowledge through the study of > Vedas...? If that is so, then there is no path to realization outside > Vedas.. > > Thank you very much > > Sudhesh Dear Sudhesh-ji, It may or may not be that that they had studied the vedas in past lives. I cannot say anything on this point. But that does not affect my conclusions which are based on other reasons also. These are only my views based on what I have heard from my teachers. I am not asking others to accept them. Each one may take his own decision. Best wishes, S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Namaste Sastriji and Sudeshji. A thought occurred to me when I read the exchange between you both quoted below. We say the Upanishads are apaurusheya. That implies that they are timeless or eternal. If we can thus liberate them from temporality, why impose on them the thraldom of spatiality? Why do we see (visualize) them as mere tomes even when we acknowledge that they are shruti? Thus, it derives that Upanishadic knowledge has always existed at all places. We can't therefore be Indian or Hindu chauvinists - nay, not even terrestrial chauvinists. Upanishadic Knowledge is the all-pervading Consciousness and belongs to all things sentient. Maharaj and Amma were, perhaps, exposed to such Knowledge in their previous births somewhere in this vast Universe (if we are so very particular that it didn't happen in the US or the Middle-East!) or in a parallel reality in their current (last) birth which perhaps they happened to access through yogic meditation. Amma, in fact, has explained her 'liberation' as an 'experience' of the Devi descending upon her as heavenly brilliance, whereafter she spontaneously became the mother of everything. Maharaj had 'realization' endowed to him by his Guru, I believe. Both of them were therefore ready for the occurrence of Knowledge. Agreed, these are conjectures. But, isn't there a thrilling beauty about them? We are all pulsating receivers roaming the skies for the right frequency. The One above decides who is ready and who should receive. Let us, therefore, pray. Best regards. Madathil Nair ________________ > advaitin , " Sudesh Pillutla " <sudeshpillutla@> wrote: > > > > Is it possible that what we call Ramana, Nisargatta, etc are the names > > of the last forms of the souls before they broke the cycle. In previous > > lives could they have acquired this Knowledge through the study of > > Vedas...? If that is so, then there is no path to realization outside > > Vedas.. _____________________ advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > It may or may not be that that they had studied the vedas in past lives. I cannot say anything on this point. But that does not affect my conclusions which are based on other reasons also. These are only my views based on what I have heard from my teachers. .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 To Shri Nair-ji: An excerpt from a friend of mine: ***************************************** If one examines other religions, there are various commonalities between them and the sanatana dharma. But those schools of thought, disconnected from the shruti and which does not accept shabda pramana, are of no use to an Astika like the milk tasted by a dog. Though it is the same milk as the one placed in a silver vessel in front of the deity, would one offer the former to his beloved. ******************************************* Hence, swa-dharma is most important and any dharma which is not in accordance with shruti & smriti should be abandoned by an astika who believes in sanatana dharma. To Shri Sudhesh-ji: It cannot be said that the realised masters who are *illiterate* in veda vidya might have studied shruti in their previous lives. Some of the realised masters like Shri Narayana Guru, Swami Vivekananda, Nisargadatta Maharaj, etc. belonged to the 4th varna. Some of the yoga-bhrashtas whom my own gurunatha met belonged to the caste *panchama* (in english the untouchables). One such yogini under whom my gurunatha sat at her feet was Mahayogini Tikka Lakshmamma Avva who used to roam about naked, drink the drainage water to quench her thirst and leftover food from dustbins. She belonged to the untouchable caste. But her mastery on Brahmasutra and Upanishad Vidya was simply remarkable and astounding. My paramaguru Shri Gollapinni Mallikarjuna Sastry who was a great srividya upasaka having been initiated into the sividya lore and secrets by Shri Nrisimha Bharati Swamigal of Sringeri, had to sit at the feet of this untouchable Lakshmamma Avva. Shri Mallikarjuna Sastry, during the midnight, used to visit a particular dustbin where inside the dustbin she used to perform shatchakra bhedana-a. She practices a form of kundalini sadhana where the Kundalini is raised from Muladhara and is made to pierce the 6 chakras and is taken to Sahasrara. Thereby, the union of Siva-Sakti is attained, and with Lambika and Khechari Mudra, the tongue is turned inside and is sent to the skull. Meanwhile, in the process of Siva-Sakti Union, the amrita (ambrosia / nectar) trickles down and the yogi tastes this nectar with his tongue which was already sent inside the skull. This form of yoga abhyasa is mentioned in Lalitha Sahasranama which is mentioned in the name *sahasrAmbujAruDhA sudhAsArabhivarShiNi*. Shri Gollapinni Mallikarjuna Sastry used to learn this yogic technique from a shudra yogini who inturn taught the yogic secrets to my gurunatha. My question is had they studied veda, vedanta etc. in their previous lives, they would have born as highly learned brahmin in a traditional / orthodox smartha learned families. Why did they take birth in the caste of *untouchables*? The answer to this is a big question mark. with regards, sriram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Nairji, Pranams thank you for this thrillingly beautiful post! A wide perspective like that is were all these seeming contradictions disappear in. Om Shanti Sitara advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > Namaste Sastriji and Sudeshji. > > A thought occurred to me when I read the exchange between you both quoted below. > > We say the Upanishads are apaurusheya. That implies that they are timeless or eternal. If we can thus liberate them from temporality, why impose on them the thraldom of spatiality? Why do we see (visualize) them as mere tomes even when we acknowledge that they are shruti? > > Thus, it derives that Upanishadic knowledge has always existed at all places. We can't therefore be Indian or Hindu chauvinists - nay, not even terrestrial chauvinists. Upanishadic Knowledge is the all-pervading Consciousness and belongs to all things sentient. > > Maharaj and Amma were, perhaps, exposed to such Knowledge in their previous births somewhere in this vast Universe (if we are so very particular that it didn't happen in the US or the Middle-East!) or in a parallel reality in their current (last) birth which perhaps they happened to access through yogic meditation. > > Amma, in fact, has explained her 'liberation' as an 'experience' of the Devi descending upon her as heavenly brilliance, whereafter she spontaneously became the mother of everything. Maharaj had 'realization' endowed to him by his Guru, I believe. Both of them were therefore ready for the occurrence of Knowledge. > > Agreed, these are conjectures. But, isn't there a thrilling beauty about them? We are all pulsating receivers roaming the skies for the right frequency. The One above decides who is ready and who should receive. Let us, therefore, pray. > > Best regards. > > Madathil Nair > ________________ > > > advaitin , " Sudesh Pillutla " <sudeshpillutla@> wrote: > > > > > > Is it possible that what we call Ramana, Nisargatta, etc are the names > > > of the last forms of the souls before they broke the cycle. In previous > > > lives could they have acquired this Knowledge through the study of > > > Vedas...? If that is so, then there is no path to realization outside > > > Vedas.. > _____________________ > > advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri@> wrote: > > > It may or may not be that that they had studied the vedas in past lives. I cannot say anything on this point. But that does not affect my conclusions which are based on other reasons also. These are only my views based on what I have heard from my teachers. .... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > > A thought occurred to me when I read the exchange between you both quoted below. > > We say the Upanishads are apaurusheya. That implies that they are timeless or eternal. If we can thus liberate them from temporality, why impose on them the thraldom of spatiality? Why do we see (visualize) them as mere tomes even when we acknowledge that they are shruti? > > Thus, it derives that Upanishadic knowledge has always existed at all places. We can't therefore be Indian or Hindu chauvinists - nay, not even terrestrial chauvinists. Upanishadic Knowledge is the all-pervading Consciousness and belongs to all things sentient. > > > Agreed, these are conjectures. But, isn't there a thrilling beauty about them? We are all pulsating receivers roaming the skies for the right frequency. The One above decides who is ready and who should receive. Let us, therefore, pray. Namaste, The question then remains, can 'nAstika' philosophies lead one to advaita? Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2009 Report Share Posted June 5, 2009 Dear Sunder-ji, An often vituperative friend of 'ours', now in a very constructive mood and endeavours, has sent me ('us') the following answer: QUOTE The greatest name that man ever gave to God is Truth! Where is the question of creating an asthika 'advaita' and a 'nastika' advaita ? sunderji , that is a contradiction in terms . read chapter 13 verse 5 , sri mad bhagvad gita rsibhir bahudha gitam chandobhir vividhaih prthak brahma-sutra-padais caiva hetumadbhir viniscitaih UNQUOTE Do I have to say anything more? Our friend has hit the mark. If the question still remains, kindly name the nAstika philosophy you have in mkind. Best regards. Madathil Nair __________________ advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh wrote: > > The question then remains, can 'nAstika' philosophies lead one to advaita? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2009 Report Share Posted June 5, 2009 Me thinks that a " sincere " nastika will sooner or later be drawn into HIS fold ... Pranams ramesh -- On Thu, 6/4/09, Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote: Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism advaitin Thursday, June 4, 2009, 11:57 PM advaitin@ s.com, " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair@ ...> wrote: > > > A thought occurred to me when I read the exchange between you both quoted below. > > We say the Upanishads are apaurusheya. That implies that they are timeless or eternal. If we can thus liberate them from temporality, why impose on them the thraldom of spatiality? Why do we see (visualize) them as mere tomes even when we acknowledge that they are shruti? > > Thus, it derives that Upanishadic knowledge has always existed at all places. We can't therefore be Indian or Hindu chauvinists - nay, not even terrestrial chauvinists. Upanishadic Knowledge is the all-pervading Consciousness and belongs to all things sentient. > > > Agreed, these are conjectures. But, isn't there a thrilling beauty about them? We are all pulsating receivers roaming the skies for the right frequency. The One above decides who is ready and who should receive. Let us, therefore, pray. Namaste, The question then remains, can 'nAstika' philosophies lead one to advaita? Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2009 Report Share Posted June 5, 2009 Dear sir, Namaste. First of all, let us try to understand the 2 terms: astika & nastika Astika is one who believes in sabda-pramana and shruti pramana ie., one who believes in Veda as the authority and nastika is one who does not believe in shruti (veda) pramana. Now, advaita is an *experience* which is beyond astika and nastika principle. Whether you believe in Veda or not, the *experience* of YOU is in you. That is why Acharya Sankara has taken all the philosphies into his fold but with a *little twist*. Kanchi mahaperiyaval once remarked that even a nastika can attain moksha but he has to rely on his own as he does not believe in sabda pramana to correlate *his experience*. Even if he gets the advaitic experience, with what upanishadic vakya does he correlate his experience since he does not believe in veda / upanishad pramana. So, nastika's experience is *his own experience*. Now, whether you name that experience as truth, moksha, nirvana, maha nirvana, shunya etc. etc. it is upto to us to name. Just my 2 cents, regs, sriram advaitin , ramesh chivukula <ramesh_chiv wrote: > > Me thinks that a " sincere " nastika will sooner or later be drawn into HIS fold .. > > Pranams > > ramesh > > > 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.