advaita vedanta and buddhism

[Guest guest]

Respected Shastri-ji

Sashtang pranams. Thank you for your message. I thought I would not post

anything more on this topic, which again I find to be of minimal to no relevance

to a serious Vedanta student, I do want to acknowledge and respond to your

message. So here again, let me offer my perspective here one final(?) time.

 

There seem to three issues

a. Does Advaita Vedanta adopt a rigid/absolute stance when it comes to declaring

the Vedas as the only pramana for self-knowledge?

b. As followers of this tradition then, how do we view or reconcile this fact

with other spiritual traditions?

c. Do all spiritual traditions say the identical truth in different ways

 

With regards to the first question - there can simply be no two opinions that

the Shruti the Smrti as well as Shankara's bhashyas (as well as Sureshwara's

vartikas for that matter) all repeatedly, consistently and categorically affirm

that the ONLY means of knowledge of Brahman, or self-knowledge, is the Shastra.

There is no leeway that allows for any other pramana besides the Shastra to be

operational in leading to self-knowledge - mystic experiences included.

 

In BrahmaSutra 2.1.27 " tu shruteh shabdamulatvat "

 

Shankara in his bhashya here also clarifies " ...partlessness is accepted on

account of its very mention in the Upanishads and the Upanishads are the ONLY

authority about It " and further " So what need has one to argue that the nature

of Brahman, whjose power is beyond all thought, cannot be ascertained UNLESS it

be through the Vedas? " and moreover " Hence a supersensuous thing is truly known

from the Vedic source ALONE " .

 

In a different part the famous sutra BS 1.1.3 " Shastra yonitvat "

Sastra is the ONLY pramana for knowing Brahman.

It is only from the Sastra that Brahman is known.

 

Similarly in innumerable instances in the Introduction to the Br.Up for example,

in the Upadesha Sahasri, in the Sutrabhashyas, etc Shankara explicitly affirms

that the knowledge of Brahman can be obtained ONLY from the Shastras.

 

It is important to again note in this instance that the Vedas are not scriptures

authored by Rishis based on their personal experiences or " revelations " . They

are not even authored by the SUpreme Lord Himself. They are simply imparted by

the Supreme Being at the beginning of each cycle of creation without effort as

in breathing out. (The Br.Up 3.4.10 refers to the VedAs as verily the breath of

Brahman) So even the Lord does not have any liberty in " creating " the Vedas - he

has to impart them in strictly and exactly the same way as they were in the

previous kalpa since beginnigless time. So unlike other spiritual traditions our

faith in the VedAs is not based on the circular logic that the VedAs are true

because God created them and God is true because the VedAs says so " - it is

precisely in this sense that the VedAs are considered to be coeval with

beginningless Creation - and hence are called `apaurusheya'

 

So a firmrooted and unswerving faith in the VedAs - which is termed being an

" astika " - is central to any seeker in advaita vedanta. " shraddhavan labhate

jnanam " in the words of Bhagwan KrishnA.

 

Certainly the vaidika margA is not one easy to obtain. In the words of the

Vivekachudamani " For all beings a human birth is difficult to obtain, more so is

a male body; rarer than that is Brahmanahood; rarer still is the attachment to

the path of Vedic religion " So one can certainly be grateful and privileged to

come into the fold of a tradition that is based on the Vedic path.

 

It is very likely that persons such as Ramana Maharishi or Nisargadatta who were

born into a Vaidkia tradition had prior births of exposure to the vaidkia marga

- in fact Ramana had stated as much, and has at the same time acknowledged the

VedAs as being the source of knowledge of Oneness with the Supreme. Similarly

many of the modern Westerners who write about Oneness and the like (Tolle,

Walsch, Chopra) have themselves acknowledge - some more halfheartedly - that

they have been exposed to " numerous " source of Eastern philosophy in this birth.

 

Now the question is raised: does our faith in the VedAs as being the sole

pramanA for self-knowledge then mean we condemn or reject the validity of other

spiritual traditions?

The answer is no - we do not. Every spiritual tradition has validity in and of

itself. And the correct interpretation of what the tenets of a given spiritual

system are is best left to the proponents of that system. Hoisting advaitic

interpretations to scattered statements in their scriptures, is in my view

unjustified. Ishwara's Order is perfect and it will ever ensure that a sincere

devout seeker belonging to any tradition - be it Abrahamic, Sikh, Jain, dvaitic,

etc - will never be forsaken. As per the doctrine of karma each person is born

in a religion and environment suitable for his or her own further

advancement. " tasyaahaM na praNashyaami sa cha me na praNashyati " This is

Krishna's resounding promise - that My devotee I shall never forsake. How He

navigates their journey to salvation is not our concern. The following is an

excerpt from the SutaSamhita/Skanda PurAnA

 

" Listen with faith, O sages, to what I say as to the truth of the various

paths. Vedas, DharmaShastras, Puranas, Vedangas and minor Vedas; ...........the

Pashpuata, Soma, Bhairava and other ligamas with their hundred varieties;

Vaishnava and Brahma agamas ; the agamas of the Baddhas and the Arhats;

..........the Tarka-sastras in all their vastness; the profound Mimamsa, as also

Sankhya and Yoga : all these and many more Shastras, the Omniscient Divine Being

has made in brief. It is only by the Grace of Rudra that Devas like Brahmas and

Vishnu, Siddhas, Yakshas, Rakshasas, Munis and men make the Shastras again, in

brief or in extenso. The wise say that each of these sastras is intended for a

particular class according to the individual qualification, not all for one. As

all streams ultimately empty themselves into the ocean, so all these paths

ultimately lead to the Mahesvara Himself. Worshipped in what form soever by

people as ordained in their respective scriptures, He assumes that form and

takes the devotee on to the next higher step. By His Grace man attains to

superior paths. The Divine Being worshipped in the form in which He is

represented in these paths takes the devotee step hy step onward to the path of

the Veda. The form which the Divine Being assumes in the path of the Veda is the

immediate cause of salvation. Even there the form of the Divine Being as

represented hy the ritualistic portion of the Veda only stimulates a longing for

knowledge while worshipped in the form presented in the theosophical portion He

leads the devotee to moksha through wisdom. As the highest salvation is only of

one kind, the knowledge wliich leads to it must be of one kind and of one kind

onlv. The Vedanta treats of Shankara as the non.dual Atman. No other path treats

of Him directly as the Vedanta does. Therefore knowledge produced by the Veda is

alone wisdom. Knowledge obtained by other means is avidya, unwisdom. The other

paths cannot themselves lead to moksha, they are serviceable only as leading to

it through the intervening steps. Mahadeva, as known by the Vedanta, directly

gives moksha; as known and worshipped in the other paths. He leads to moksha hy

gradually taking the soul on to the direct path. Wherefore he who treads the

path of the Vedanta should not change it for any other. For those who tread the

path of the Veda, nothing is hard to attain. There alone lie the supreme mukti.

Wherefore the different paths are useful to the different individuals for whom

they are specially intended. Whenever other paths are opposed to the Vedanta in

their theories as to the nature of Isvara, as to the cause of bondage, as to the

cause of the Universe, as to mukti, and as to what constitutes wisdom, and so

on, those theories, to be sure, have been furnished in accordance with the

prevailing desires of the ignorant whose minds are darkened by the mighty

delusion, not because they are absolutely true in themselves, but because they

serve, by holding out some legitimate pleasures, to ultimately bring them round

to the right path when their sins have been washed away in the waters of the

more or less pure morality therein inculcated. As man allures an erratic cow by

holding out grass, so does Mahesvara first hold out some pleasures and then

gives supreme wisdom as the mind becomes perfected. 'Thus these paths, laid out

as they are by Shiva, are all of them true and serviceable. How can Shiva be a

deceiver? He is supremely merciful, omniscient, and altogether stainless. Yet,

of all the paths, the path of the Veda is the best, as conducing to all good. " .

 

WHen we try to interpret other scriptures based on our own knowledge of VedAntA

we undermine the ability of acknowledged Masters of that tradition to interpret

it in the way they see fit. Would the Pope or any minister or bishop preach

AdvaitA or acknowledge that someone like Ramana achieved salvation without first

accepting Christ as His one True God and Savior? Would a Maulvi consider that

someone like Amritananda Ma who rejected the idea that Allah was the one and

only true God and Reality had achieved the status of Total Oneness with the

Supreme. Do we feel that our ability to interpret Buddhist thought is better

than hundreds of Great Buddhist masters who in trying to interpret the teachings

of the BuddhA founded various schools and subschools of Buddhism itself. Isnt

what MahAvirA taught best left to someone who has devoted his lifetime in the

pursuit of the JainA mArgA, and who will never acknowledge Satyam-JnAnam-Anantam

Brahman as taught by the Upanishads? How, without such knowledge, Ishwara will

enable the emancipation of the varied followers of all these different faiths

need not be our concern. Every devout follower whatsoever be his faith will by

the strength of his devotion develop the qualities of ahimsA, amanitvam,

adambhitvam, arjavam, kshanti, shama, dama, brahmacharyam, and so forth and

gradually also total vairagyAm which really are the gateways to MokshA - be it

videhamukti or kramamukti. So while a Vedantic student who is caught up in his

own system's intellectual superiority may choose to never progress beyond a

lifetime of intellectual pursuit and jugglery, and fritter away this life

without taking the effort at inculcating shadsampatti, a devout Muslim for

example may instead make use of this lifetime far more effectively in working

towards his emancipation, by a strict adherence to the principles of his own

religious faith, without ever wondering about the intricacies of ajahallakshana,

etc

 

We need not dilute the import of nor attempt to reinterpret our own scriptures

in order to accomodate or provide bypass routes for non-believers of our

traditions - it is quite unnecessary (and in many ways patronizing).

 

For example - the oft-quoted rishibhir bahudha geetam - what does this statement

mean? Does this mean that all religions speak of the One Reality in different

ways? Absolutely not! What Krishna is indicating here that IN THE VEDAS various

mantra-drshtAs such as Vashishta have described the One Reality in many ways and

so has the author of the BrahmasutrAs - BAdArayana. One cannot now reinterpret

this and say this also applies to proponents of every other belief system in the

world like Islam and BahAi etc. Another oft quoted mantra of all-inclusiveness

is " ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti " Let us examine the entire sloka here

" Indram mitram varunam agni mahuradho divyah Sa suparno garutman Ekam sat vipra

bahudha vadanti agnim yamam matariswanam ahuh " They call it Indra, Mitra,

Varuna, Agni as well as Garutman of heavenly plumage. Truth or Reality is One,

but the learned (Brahmanas) refer to it in different names like agni, yama,

matariswan "

This is a mantra from the Rig VedA which affirms that all the deities that are

worshipped in the ritualistic section of the VedAs are in reality varied forms

of the one ParamAtman. It does not mean that every religion's version of " Real "

or the concept of what Reality is, is necessarily the same or identical. What

separates the Vedic path from others is that most of the other religions will

say - " Believe in my God or be prepared to spend eternity in Hell " .

 

Can the testimony of certain self-realized Masters be considered a equally valid

pramana? Yes - as long as such testimony is in line with the VedAntA - and again

here it is not the testimony itself that is the pramAna but the oneness of such

a testimony with what VedAntA affirms that becomes the pramAnA - for example if

a self-realized soul were to proclaim that there is no Ultimate Eternal Reality,

then such a teaching and the teacher is best ignored by us. For example the

BuddhA would certainly be considered Self-Realized in the same manner as we

would consider hundreds of other Masters. And yet we find Bhagwan Shankara

saying the BuddhA was incoherent, deluded, and malicious - all in one sweeping

statement! So if someone acknowledged as one of the Greatest Sages of our times

can be so charactized by our beloved AchAryA then we should certainly question

if we as ignorant jivAs have the capacity to trust any achAryA who does not base

or at least reconcile his own teachings and experience with the VedAs.

 

We have a lot of ground to cover in our own as yet fragile hold on the Truth and

in the severely limited time we have in this human birth to understand and

assimilate VedantA which we have fortunately been privileged to be learning in a

sampradaya which has been preserved since time immemorial. Let us conserve our

efforts and energies in that, instead of trying to find similarities with the

hundred other prominent religious faiths in the world, or wondering about the

mechanism of those we find " self-realized " , seemingly bereft of the benefit of

direct Vedic teaching.

 

Again, my sincere thoughts only - I respect the fact that these may neither be

aligned with the majority nor necessarily considered popular. My apologies for

its inadvertent length and/or if it offends anyone's beliefsystems!

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Respected Shastri-ji

> Sashtang pranams. Thank you for your message... So here again, let me offer

my perspective here one final(?) time.

>

 

 

Shyamji,

 

My pranams for this candid, precise and valuable post.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Shyamji, Namaste,

 

Recently you wrote:

 

" ...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. "

" ...and has at the same time acknowledged the VedAs as being the source

of knowledge of Oneness with the Supreme. "

 

Since you reiterate these statements in your recent postings, I kindly

request that you provide firm sources or references from the Bhagavan

Ramana literature to assert your point.They must be handy since you said

you provided direct quotations at one time, I believe, through the

Advaitin List.

I am a serious student of Vedanta (through the means of knowledge that

are the words of mu GuruJi) so I am more than interested when it comes

to an aspect that escaped or I misunderstood in my studies of His

literature.

 

If by lack of interest or time or unknowingness you fail to provide them

(references), then please refrain to base your thinking in hearsay while

substantiating an opinion.

By providing them, and showing that your interpretation is right, I

shall bow once again to that bottomless source of Knowledge that are His

words.

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

I am also peeved by the fact that Tolle has not acknowledged his indebtedness to

Advaita sufficiently. I had mentioned this in one of my posts earlier here.

 

I don't know anything about the 'Hindu beliefs' mentioned in his works. May be

I have difficulty sifting this so-called Hinduism from thoughts relating to

sanAtana dharma.

 

'A New Earth' is not a rendition of Advaita - even partial. It is an superb

blend of Buddhism, Zen, Advaita and a lot of other things Eastern and Western,

perhaps in a Christian crucible. What is great is Tolle's approach, clarity and

style of presentation by which millions have been well-guided. Isn't that

enough? In an age when even prAnAyAma and yogic exercises are pirated and

'patented' after peculiar names by Indians themselves, why are we so upset about

a noble effort?

 

Beyond all that, due to the fact that Hindu critics find in Tolle's works

flagrant plagiarism of Advaita, while they actually relate more to Buddhism and

Zen, the closeness of the former to the latter stand revealed in sharp contrast

despite our firm refutations!

 

Best regards to all.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

 

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> Shastriji, I just want to point out that your statement above is quite

debatable. I think someone before had said " Old wine in new bottle " .

>

> Anyway, I don't have too great references to challenge. However this opinion

is echoed here with regard to a related book " New Earth " :

>

>

> " While lots of Hindu beliefs are mentioned in the book, Hinduism is hardly

mentioned by name. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Hinduism cannot fail

to notice this lacking. As Shukla explains, " A New Earth is nothing but a

partial rendition of Advaita Vedanta, but without proper credit or citation.

***Eckhart Tolle himself, outside of the context of the book, has acknowledged

amongst his main sources of inspiration the teachings of Ramana Maharshi and the

Bhagavad Gita. " *** "

>

> http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1252

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

>

> Namaste.

>

> I am also peeved by the fact that Tolle has not acknowledged his indebtedness

to Advaita sufficiently. I had mentioned this in one of my posts earlier here.

>

> I don't know anything about the 'Hindu beliefs' mentioned in his works. May

be I have difficulty sifting this so-called Hinduism from thoughts relating to

sanAtana dharma.

>

> 'A New Earth' is not a rendition of Advaita - even partial. It is an superb

blend of Buddhism, Zen, Advaita and a lot of other things Eastern and Western,

perhaps in a Christian crucible. What is great is Tolle's approach, clarity and

style of presentation by which millions have been well-guided. Isn't that

enough? In an age when even prAnAyAma and yogic exercises are pirated and

'patented' after peculiar names by Indians themselves, why are we so upset about

a noble effort?

>

 

 

Nairji, you are probably right - I did not read the book. I was responding to

Shastriji's particular comments on Tolle's realization from personal experience

without prior study of our scriptures (see my ***'ed sentence). As for the

" where " he wrote things from, and the where's of those where's, this is probably

left alone for now. (It always bugs me for instance to hear " Patanjali was born

in Afghanistan (or was an Afghan) or Pakistan. " There are plenty of slights on

history that carry calculated messages; we may as well stand up and give a kick

when it stings. Give-a-hiss policy.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

probably left alone for now. (It always bugs me for instance to hear " Patanjali

was born in Afghanistan (or was an Afghan) or Pakistan. "

 

Meant " Paanini "

[Guest guest]

Respected Dear Sri Shyam-ji:

 

Your dedication to the Advaitic tradition is inspirational and your writing

is enjoyable to read.

 

You should know Shyam-ji that Sri Ramana had many conversations with

thousands of people during his life time and at times appears inconsistent.

The reason for this is that each of these conversations had a context. The

context was the person Bhagavan happened to be talking to.

 

Sri Ramana was generally supportive of any number of paths and spoke

favorably about the Buddha and Christianity and other religions. He was all

embracing. That is just how he was.

 

Respected Shyam-ji, you are a spiritual brother. You are extremely

knowledgeable about our traditions, much more so than I can ever hope to be.

Your mind and intellect are sharp and logical. In the tradition and the path

you are following, you shine like a bright star.

 

However, respected Shyam-ji, you are not fully familiar with the general

spirit of Bhagavan Ramana's teaching and his intent. Therefore, if you use

Sri Ramana's name to justify what you are saying, the devotees will tend to

question it.

 

All practices including reading the Upanishads, meditation, pranayama, etc.

were considered by Bhagavan to be preliminary to attaining the maturity of

mind needed to do self-inquiry.

 

Bhagavan was an Advaitic sage and steeped in the ancient vedic traditions to

a large extent. However, he was also beyond these traditions and not the

least bit rigid. He simply supported whoever was before him by saying

whatever needed to be said. This meant that Bhagavan often ended up saying

different things to different people. The devotees know that and focus on

the essence of Bhagavan's teaching.

 

If someone tells me " your mother said this last week, and she said something

else yesterday, and something else today. " , my response would be very

simple.

 

I would say, " Well, she is my mother and regardless of what she might or

might not have said, I know what she meant. "

 

It is the same with Sri Bhagavan Ramana.

 

Namaste and love to all

 

Yours in Bhagavan

Harsha

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of shyam_md

Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:49 PM

advaitin

Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

 

 

It is very likely that persons such as Ramana Maharishi or Nisargadatta who

were born into a Vaidkia tradition had prior births of exposure to the

vaidkia marga - in fact Ramana had stated as much, and has at the same time

acknowledged the VedAs as being the source of knowledge of Oneness with the

Supreme. Similarly many of the modern Westerners who write about Oneness and

the like (Tolle, Walsch, Chopra) have themselves acknowledge - some more

halfheartedly - that they have been exposed to " numerous " source of Eastern

philosophy in this birth.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Harsha " wrote:

>

>

> All practices including reading the Upanishads, meditation, pranayama, etc.

> were considered by Bhagavan to be preliminary to attaining the maturity of

> mind needed to do self-inquiry.

>

> Bhagavan was an Advaitic sage and steeped in the ancient vedic traditions to

> a large extent. However, he was also beyond these traditions and not the

> least bit rigid. He simply supported whoever was before him by saying

> whatever needed to be said. This meant that Bhagavan often ended up saying

> different things to different people. The devotees know that and focus on

> the essence of Bhagavan's teaching.

 

Namaste all,

 

The following quotationshave the same eternality that Krishna referred

to:

 

http://www.advaitin.net/Vedanta%20Classics/talks_with_sri__comple\

te.pdf

 

 

M.: Different seers saw different aspects of truths at different times,

each emphasising some one view. Why do you worry about their

conficting statements? The essential aim of the Veda is to teach us the

nature of the imperishable Atman and show us that we are That.

D.: I am satisfed with that portion.

M.: Then treat all the rest as artha vada (auxiliary arguments) or

expositions for the sake of the ignorant who seek to trace the genesis of things

and matters.

 

=======================================================

 

The one Infnite Unbroken Whole (plenum) becomes aware of

itself as `I'. This is its original name. All other names, e.g., OM,

are later growths. Liberation is only to remain aware of the Self.

The mahavakya " I am Brahman " is its authority. Though the `I' is

always experienced, yet one's attention has to be drawn to it. Only

then does knowledge dawn. Thus the need for the instruction of

the Upanishads and of wise sages.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Harsha " wrote:

>

> Respected Dear Sri Shyam-ji:

>

> Your dedication to the Advaitic tradition is inspirational and your writing

> is enjoyable to read.

>

> You should know Shyam-ji that Sri Ramana had many conversations with

> thousands of people during his life time and at times appears inconsistent.

> The reason for this is that each of these conversations had a context. The

> context was the person Bhagavan happened to be talking to.

>

> Sri Ramana was generally supportive of any number of paths and spoke

> favorably about the Buddha and Christianity and other religions. He was all

> embracing. That is just how he was.

>

> Respected Shyam-ji, you are a spiritual brother. You are extremely

> knowledgeable about our traditions, much more so than I can ever hope to be.

> Your mind and intellect are sharp and logical. In the tradition and the path

> you are following, you shine like a bright star.

>

> However, respected Shyam-ji, you are not fully familiar with the general

> spirit of Bhagavan Ramana's teaching and his intent. Therefore, if you use

> Sri Ramana's name to justify what you are saying, the devotees will tend to

> question it.

>

> All practices including reading the Upanishads, meditation, pranayama, etc.

> were considered by Bhagavan to be preliminary to attaining the maturity of

> mind needed to do self-inquiry.

>

> Bhagavan was an Advaitic sage and steeped in the ancient vedic traditions to

> a large extent. However, he was also beyond these traditions and not the

> least bit rigid. He simply supported whoever was before him by saying

> whatever needed to be said. This meant that Bhagavan often ended up saying

> different things to different people. The devotees know that and focus on

> the essence of Bhagavan's teaching.

 

Namaste H,

 

IMO If one is a Jivanmukta then one's mind is the Sakti mind, as the Jiva ego is

gone. So a Mukta can only reflect whatever individual mind is in front of him or

her............Cheers Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

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

> >

> > Respected Shastri-ji

> > Sashtang pranams. Thank you for your message... So here again, let me offer

my perspective here one final(?) time.

> >

>

>

 

Shyamji, your last post was dismissed without a direct response by the power of

Shastriji's 'supplement' and Sadaji's post. The present one seems to be getting

attention more for its reference to Ramana, 'my Guru', etc. than the

sampradaya's methodology, pramana for Knowledge, etc. I think you are hitting

against a wall, except possibly with some " Hindu fundamentalists " . I do

wistfully recall Rishiji's, Devanathanji's objections of times back.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Dear Shyam-ji and others who have participated in this thread,

I am glad that my mail has evoked so much response.

You all know that I am the most traditional person in this group, having studied

the bhashyas in Sanskrit in Sankara Gurukulam in Chennai where only Brahmins are

allowed and we have to wear panchakaccham and observe ritual purity. I would be

the last man to dilute the value of the upanishads. If I err, that would be more

on the conservative side.

I do not wish to add anything more.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Namaste Durgaji.

 

Some doubts which crossed my mind, when I read your mail, are in below your

statements:

 

_____________

 

> I believe that within the tradition we even have

> an English word which is commonly used to describe

> someone who has gained self-knowledge, but who doesn't

> have an effective way to teach others the same thing.

 

[MN: You seem to accept mystics as people who have gained self-knowledge. How

did they happen to gain realization without the systematic study you so ardently

espouse?]

________________

 

> These are some of the types of statements I have heard

> regarding a 'mystic.' A mystic, through his or

> words or presence, can inspire another, but a mystic

> cannot make another mystic.

>

> Whether this statement is a blanket statement or not,

> I don't know, but I think that generally it is true.

 

[MN: A mystic can become a mystic on his own. He cannot make another person a

mystic. Isn't that strange? As far as I know, even a traditional teacher of

Vedanta cannot make another person self-realized. He can only help him prepare

for realization. Whether he realizes or not is a matter of Grace. So, what is

the great difference between a mystic and a traditional teacher except that the

latter has a systmatic methodology at his disposal. Even that methodology is

loose in the sense that we have different courses of action recommended under

the very same vedantic umbrella by those who vote for bhakti, Shankara advaita,

vishiSta advaita etc. Even in Shankara advaita, later masters have held

divergent views. Then we have Bhagawan Ramana ardents. So, am I to take it that

the methodology you are recommending is the specific one you have taken to?]

______________________

>

>In my long search to

> find a teacher who could 'show me' the truth, I met a

> lot of people, some of whom claimed to know

> the truth, and some of whom may even have known the

> truth, but none of whom seemed to have an effective

> way to help another know what they themselves knew.

 

[MN: You are right there. However, you are lucky you found one. I haven't

yet, although many teachers have inspired me and given me a feeling that they

know.]

___________________

>

> The beauty of Vedanta, IMO, is that it can take

> a student step by step to the clear recognition

> of the truth by using the tried and true methodology

> which the teachings employ.

 

[MN: You have to be specific about whose methodology you are referring to. As

I mentioned above, the umbrella of Vedanta accommodates just too many.]

______________

>

> There may be other systems and teachings which can

> do this, but I have never encountered another, (which

> is not to say categorically that another doesn't exist.)

>

> But what I have repeatedly encountered are people who,

> I would say, are trying to reinvent the wheel, in that they

> are writing books, and even trying to come up with

> systems and methods to enable their students to

> know. Generally, from what I've seen, their efforts

> are not very successful.

 

> The beauty of Vedanta, IMO, is that the 'wheel'

> is already here. There is a time-honored, tried and true,

> methodology right here, and it is not a system of

> 'hit and miss.'

 

[MN: The teachers, who you say have helped you recognize the truth, have

atleast thoroughly repainted the wheel, if not reinvented, with their own

colours and brush strokes!]

_____________________

 

> After one has soaked in these precious teachings

> for awhile, I think that one can then read the words

> of 'mystics' and understand what those words mean.

> Even prior to that, one may intuitively feel that the

> words are pointing out the truth, but one may find

> that truth inaccessible.

 

[MN: Right. That I believe is what happened in Sastriji's case. However, I

don't have an explanation why others, who have had the benefit of systematic

teaching, have decried Tolle here. By the way, a person from another tradition,

say Buddhism, might also find Tolle as much interesting as a systematic

advaitin. How about that? Perhaps, Truth has doors other than the one right in

front of our eyes.]

__________________

>

> One can be in the presence of a 'mystic' and come

> away feeling inspired, or perhaps feeling calm and

> peaceful. What one walks away with is a pleasant

> experience, which one may want to repeat, but what

> one generally does not walk away with is self-knowledge,

> (even after a lot of repeats.)

 

[MN: That is tantamount to saying that you have got self-knowledge but others

who went elsewhere have only been 'inspired'.]

_____________

>

> In my experience, very few people know about the

> systematic methodology of Vedanta and how it works,

> although these same people may indicate that they are

> interested in understanding nonduality.

>

> From the vantage point of having encountered the teachings

> of Vedanta, I am sometimes amazed and perplexed that these

> people are not attracted to study Vedanta, but there it is.

 

[MN: For everything, there is a time, Durgaji. You are happy you found a

systematic methodology. There are others who feel the same way with other

Gurus. There was a time I used to bore people with the knowledge of advaita I

gained by listening to Sw. Dayanandaji. I then thought that was the end.

However, I realized very soon that my audience had their own choices of

favourite gurus. I now leave them alone and learn from them if possible. All

our teachers and writers like Tolle are beacons of Grace granted to us for our

guidance. Grace is the only system there is. It is not a partial methodology.]

____________

 

> One of Tolle's statements which you quoted, IMO, is

> the type of statement which can cause a lot of confusion

> if not properly explained.

>

> " He [Tolle] repeatedly says, " Do not try to understand this

> with your mind. "

>

> This statement of Tolle's, and similar statements by others

> which I've heard, IMO, can cause a lot of confusion. I've

> generally found that many people accept and use such statements

> as a guide in their search. And it is this for this reason that

> they may reject a teaching (such as Vedanta) which is systematic

> and which uses the mind.

 

[MN: Durgaji, this mind business is a very complicated issue. I don't think

Tolle is unaware of the point you are trying to drive home. He has written his

books using his mind. What is he then trying to say? The mind he is asking us

to keep aside is a compendium of ego, our past and pain bodies, which prevents

us from being in the 'present'. That I think is the correct advice as compared

to our tradition of erecting the Frankenstein of a mind first and then analysing

it to understand its different components and functions, when all that is

required of us to know that our knowing of everything internal and external is

only Awarenesss and we are an ocean of Awareness.]

>

> Reality is 'beyond'(or prior to) the mind, but that

> doesn't mean the mind cannot be used to understand it,

> (or perhaps a better way to put that is that the mind

> can be used as a means for recognizing what that reality is.)

>

> It is statements such as the one above by Tolle which

> confused me for a very long time. It was not until

> I met a teacher of Vedanta who was very clear on the

> subject that I began to understand what is meant by

> 'beyond the mind,' and that 'beyond the mind,' does

> not mean that the mind should not be used.

>

> So, I do feel that there are those who have arrived

> at the truth, perhaps through a variety of ways,

> or perhaps in a way that just appears to have been spontaneous,

> but from what I've seen, these same people do not have

> an effective way to help another recognize the same 'thing.'

>

> In my experience, it is the efficacy of the teachings of

> Vedanta which makes them unique and so entirely precious.

>

> Pranams,

> Durga

>

[Guest guest]

Durgaji, I am sorry I clicked the 'send' tab by mistake before I had completed

my message. It needed some editing and polishing. Kindly bear with me.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Sastriji,

>

> I thank you very much for your post on Tolle. It helps to remove our

misconceptions about him.

>

> Tolle's insights, which have a lot to do with the teachings of the East, have

a valuable practical aspect.

 

Dear Sri Rajendran Nair,

 

Please permit me to bring to your kind attention the following

information :

 

In the mantra 2-4 Of Kena Upanishad the same subject matter has been stated

.. Sri Shankara has wriiten a very beautiful and insightful commentary to that

mantra. My journey started with that mantra and culminated there by grace of

Srutimata and my revered Guru. The path shown by that mantra is the most direct

and easy one. I am sure for all the genuine and sincere seekers/mumukshus that

one

mantra and Sri Shankara's commentary to it will do to realize their

true nature.

Many of the western teachers like John Wheeler, Leo Hartong etc

are giving out this teaching to suit the temperement of seekers of this century.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

>

> Namaste Durgaji.

>

> > " He [Tolle] repeatedly says, " Do not try to understand this

> > with your mind. "

> >

> > This statement of Tolle's, and similar statements by others

> > which I've heard, IMO, can cause a lot of confusion. I've

> > generally found that many people accept and use such statements

> > as a guide in their search. And it is this for this reason that

> > they may reject a teaching (such as Vedanta) which is systematic

> > and which uses the mind.

>

> [MN: Durgaji, this mind business is a very complicated issue. I don't think

Tolle is unaware of the point you are trying to drive home. He has written his

books using his mind. What is he then trying to say? The mind he is asking us

to keep aside is a compendium of ego, our past and pain bodies, which prevents

us from being in the 'present'. That I think is the correct advice as compared

to our tradition of erecting the Frankenstein of a mind first and then analysing

it to understand its different components and functions, when all that is

required of us to know that our knowing of everything internal and external is

only Awarenesss and we are an ocean of Awareness.]

> >

> > Reality is 'beyond'(or prior to) the mind, but that

> > doesn't mean the mind cannot be used to understand it,

> > (or perhaps a better way to put that is that the mind

> > can be used as a means for recognizing what that reality is.)

> >

> > It is statements such as the one above by Tolle which

> > confused me for a very long time. It was not until

> > I met a teacher of Vedanta who was very clear on the

> > subject that I began to understand what is meant by

> > 'beyond the mind,' and that 'beyond the mind,' does

> > not mean that the mind should not be used.

> > Pranams,

 

 

Dear Durgaji and Nairji,

I wish to say something about this matter of not understanding with the mind.

Now there is one young Brahmin scholar from Kerala named Nochur Venkataraman,

traditionally trained, who gives discourses in Tamil and Malayalam. He has

specialised in Ramana's teachings. One of my teachers, who is himsekf a great

scholar, heard Nochur recently and was all praise for him. I have the CDs o his

discourses on Ramana's teachings, Bhagavata, etc. They are wonderful. By now he

is well known to all Malayalis and Tamilians. He too always says " Do not try to

understand with the mind " . I was struck by this resemblance between him, a

totally traditional man, and Tolle. Nairji has explained what this means. Tolle

himself has explained this in his book.

It may be that Tolle got all his ideas from the Hindu scriptures. But I felt

that there was no harm in admiring the way he has presented them. Some do not

seem to think so.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Sastriji,

 

We normally understand the mind as that which, when applied, makes the sense

organs functional. That way, we are really debasing it and reducing it to a

mere instrument of objective perception.

 

When one remains as simple awareness, witnessing, free from the sway of past and

future, the mind takes over a new dimension altogether and rests very much in

its very source. That is the NOW of Tolle, in my humble opinion. That is not

the pedestrian mind which we discuss here often and which Tolle wants us

discard.

 

By practice (may I say abhyAsa?) and chittashuddhi, the witnessing mind which

rests in the NOW ripens into what Kena 2.4 describes. Our Shrinivasa Murthy-ji

was very right in calling the List's attention to that verse. Such a mind

shines in its own resplendent grandeour through all the three states. That is

not the mind which is obliterated in deep sleep by ignorance.

 

Hope I am making sense. What I have written is my gut feeling. There is

something very visceral about it.

 

I am going to Kerala (Palakkad) next month. Kindly let me know where I can get

the CDs mentioned in your mail and the whereabouts / programme of Shri Nochurji,

if any info is available.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>> I wish to say something about this matter of not understanding with the mind.

> Now there is one young Brahmin scholar from Kerala named Nochur Venkataraman,

traditionally trained, who gives discourses in Tamil and Malayalam. He has

specialised in Ramana's teachings. One of my teachers, who is himsekf a great

scholar, heard Nochur recently and was all praise for him. I have the CDs o his

discourses on Ramana's teachings, Bhagavata, etc. They are wonderful. By now he

is well known to all Malayalis and Tamilians. He too always says " Do not try to

understand with the mind " . I was struck by this resemblance between him, a

totally traditional man, and Tolle.

[Guest guest]

I learnt about a author named Tolle.Thanks members.

 

Lord Krishna says

 

Bhagavad Gita, Ch.13, Verse 29. " Seer (Brahman) sees, who sees that all actions

are performed by nature alone, and that the Self is action less " .

 

(The Self is the Sarva Loka Sakshi).

 

suresh.

[Guest guest]

Nairji writes:

 

> We normally understand the mind as that which, when applied,

> makes the sense organs functional. That way, we are really

> debasing it and reducing it to a mere instrument of objective

> perception.

>

> When one remains as simple awareness, witnessing, free from

> the sway of past and future, the mind takes over a new

> dimension altogether and rests very much in its very source.

 

Dear Nairji,

 

I heartily agree with you. Mind is more than what makes the sense organs

functional. May I add that mind is also far more than the ability to

conceptualise and analyse which usually gets us all into never ending

disputes. I picked up a book on Sri Anandamayi Ma this morning and it

opened at the following passage:

 

" Where doctrines are, there all-inclusiveness cannot be. What is emphasised

from one point of view will be rejected from another. But where is the

state in which difference and non-difference have ceased to exist? "

 

Sri Ramana offers the following thoughts on " mind " which I believe support

what you have said above:

 

" The essence of mind is only awareness or consciousness. When the ego,

however, dominates it, it functions as the reasoning, thinking or sensing

faculty. " (Talk: 188)

 

" The undulating mind (i.e., the mind associated with rajas = activity and

tamas = darkness) is commonly known as the mind. Devoid of rajas and tamas,

it is pure and self-shining. This is Self-Realisation. Therefore the mind is

said to be the means for it. " (Talk 100)

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Sastriji,

>

> We normally understand the mind as that which, when applied, makes the sense

organs functional. That way, we are really debasing it and reducing it to a

mere instrument of objective perception.

>

> When one remains as simple awareness, witnessing, free from the sway of past

and future, the mind takes over a new dimension altogether and rests very much

in its very source. That is the NOW of Tolle, in my humble opinion. That is

not the pedestrian mind which we discuss here often and which Tolle wants us

discard.

>

> By practice (may I say abhyAsa?) and chittashuddhi, the witnessing mind which

rests in the NOW ripens into what Kena 2.4 describes. Our Shrinivasa Murthy-ji

was very right in calling the List's attention to that verse. Such a mind

shines in its own resplendent grandeour through all the three states. That is

not the mind which is obliterated in deep sleep by ignorance.

>

> Hope I am making sense. What I have written is my gut feeling. There is

something very visceral about it.

>

> I am going to Kerala (Palakkad) next month. Kindly let me know where I can

get the CDs mentioned in your mail and the whereabouts / programme of Shri

Nochurji, if any info is available.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Dear Nair-ji,

I am temporarily moving to another place. I shall go through your note re- mind

and let you know my views in 2 or 3 days.

Nochurji's discourses on Ramana's teachings were given in Tamil at Narada Gana

Sabha and Tattvaaloka in Chennai. The CDs will be available there.

I do not know exactly where the CDs of his discourses in Malayalam are availble.

You may try with RK Mission, Ernakulam where he gave some of the discourses.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

 

Pranams Shri Sastri ji, Shri Shyam ji,

 

 

 

First of all I would like to sincerely appreciate Shyam ji for sharing his

thoughts in an elaborate manner. Beautiful and thanks. I am writing in this

forum after a long gap and all these days I have trained myself well not to

get horrified with some of the asambhavana-s that are being scrapped in

here. Further am afraid to continue writing for the fear of being slapped

with IPC sections under severe criminal charges that might be framed against

me. I am a thinker too timid to withstand these threats. lol !! But now, as

an academician by profession I think it is my duty indeed to keep writing be

it what may come.

 

 

 

According to Advaita Vedanta, Spiritual aspirants may be categorized into

four vide, Prathamakalpika, Madhubhumika, Prajnajyotih and

atikrantabhavaniyah. Amongst them the first is the one who is said to be the

educated one who possess the preliminary skill for articulating the

metaphysical knowledge. He is one who contemplates on random thoughts and is

supposed to settle down with whatever gets sedimented in his mental plane.

Such men tend to preach there experience, which may seemingly correspond

with the cohort of scriptural doctrines but yet even at a cursory glance

from the learned quarters it may reveal that such thoughts completely

disobey with the holistic coherence with that of the scriptural sanctions.

The generic ingredient of humanity in the very positive sense is all set to

touch upon some common principles of one-ness, brother-hood, Viveka, ahimsa,

theism and so on, but these elemenetaty elements need not be essentially

morphed with the Advaitic method of treating the above ingredients

especially within and towards metaphysical method of investigating unto the

‘Being’. The term ‘Reality’ is quite fascinating to all religious and

philosophical quarters including the non-theistic and atheistic sections of

our society and this very reason that the term is dealt with in abundance

throughout. Realizing the limitations of language and words the very

conception and perception of reality, upon an overall survey, will seemingly

penetrate into oneanother beyond religion, faith and liturgy. But such a

penetration should certainly not be misused or misinterpreted at any rate. A

seeming similarity between a Western conception of reality with that of

Vedanta should in no pace be interpreted in such a way that the former’s

notion is consumed in the latter’s fold, leaving no distinction between the

socio-cultural situatedness. Any such attempt to over-power / over-brand

one’s thought by another belief, in my opinion is a serious attempt to curb

the so-called metaphysical freedom within the philosophical jurisprudence.

Hence Meister Eckehart, in my opinion is one Prathamakalpika, who can never

be considered to have accomplished ‘Advaitic experience’ for mere reasons to

have embraced upon few common syllables of similarities with Advaita

Vedanta.

 

 

 

German philosopher, Immanuel Kant thought it necessary to believe that

behind the world of phenomena, there existed a noumenal world or the world

of Being-in-itself, upon which the former appears and depends. On mere

reading, an ametuer Visistadvaitin may equate Kant and Ramanuja instantly.

But this position is apparently absurd and untenable; for Kant is basically

a non-theist unlike Ramanuja. Further to Kant, body-mind and will are

objectified independent realities as he dispensed with the theistic concerns

in conceiving existence and Reality as against Ramanuja and hence leaving no

scope for any meet between the both. This is just a raw instance I am

marking here to show the intensity of absurdity when making crude

convictions upon surface level similarities one may derive from two

different system of thoughts.

 

 

 

There is yet another philosophy [in the post-colonial period] that

postulates what is called the Psychical Monism which almost speaks in

idealistic-cum-absolutist accent. This says, Consciousness is the ultimate

spirit as substratum to the entire world. Consciousness is the ‘only

phenomenon’ while the matter that is ‘phenomenal’ is the reflexion of the

‘Consciousness’. Reality according to this system is nothing but realizing

one’s own existence is total isolation with the world that is seen. All

these might sound astounding Advaita and it is easy to readily cook abhasa

and drsti-srsti here; but until one really observes the striking hypothesis

underlining within; they say, Consciousness which is alone is the reality is

nothing but a symbolizing factor which remains as a brain-factor that

‘eternally’ manifests between the psycho-physical realms. Within this sphere

of perpetuation in which term they define ‘eternality’ and the compelling

conception they make about ‘matter’ is to either call it as a nodal

phenomena of diverse existence or as a disperate phenomena in plurality; in

either case their connexion is made a new fact, not provided for in their

nature and consequently inexplicable. Reality is thus captured well in the

realms of dualities that are posed to be real; though the Monistic views are

retained while non-duality is not restored here making the synthesis

completely irrelevant.

 

 

 

Mostly Advaita is misconceived to be Monistic. In academics we translate

Advaita as trans-theistic-non-dualism to be precise. To conclude, no true

student of Advaita in my experience would see complete match with another

belief system while he may initially feel fascinating texture of

similarities in thought process, which is nothing but a fibre of generic

human thought process. Serious thinkers upon comparison of any two thought

always assert subtle nuances with high magnitude distinction, which are

nonetheless real in particular sense. Profound differences are patent to

both end when it comes to philosophies East and the West and real seekers

will always appreaciate the profundity that exist not between ‘East and

West’ per-se but between ‘idiosyncracies and identities’. Accentuating

ideosyncracies and identities is far-reaching than just appropriating and

assimilating all thoughts and falsely attributing all of them at a stroke

unto Advaita.

 

 

 

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan.J

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

>

> Namaste Durgaji.

>

> Some doubts which crossed my mind, when I read your mail,

>

Namaste Nairji,

 

I can only speak from my own experience. IMO, you and

others here are fortunate not to have been directly

exposed to the large number of the 'frauds' and fakes

who are out there at large, 'preaching' the doctrine of

'advaita,' holding 'satsang' for money, getting rich thereby,

and engaging in activities which are not even remotely

within the realm of dharma, and then justifying their

actions through a perverse and incorrect use of the

statement 'there is no doer.'

 

It is understandable to me that people who are

lucky never to have seen these types of things

first hand, will credit statements in books which

seem to match the understanding of advaita, without

wondering about the purity of the source of such statements.

(I'm not saying anything negative about Tolle whom you

quoted, because I don't know anything at all about him.

I am just speaking in a general way, based on what

I have seen first-hand.)

 

Not everyone I met was a fraud, but I can say that

everything each one said was pretty much unintelligible

to me. Whether that was because they didn't have a way to

frame their words logically, or whether it was due to my

own lack of ability to understand the truth, I can't

say. Somewhere in between is probably my surmise.

 

However, I suppose that I have the opposite problem,

to those who can read words, which purport to

be true, and embrace and understand them.

 

Prior to meeting my teacher and Swami Dayanandaji,

I had long given up thinking that people of their caliber,

with that level of personal integrity, existed, whose

genuine concern seems only to be for the welfare of their

students and the creation. And I did meet and see several whose personal

integrity I later found out was clearly lacking.

So, when I encounter words which 'sound good,' I realize that what

sounds good, may not always come from a source which *is* good.

 

Thus, for me, I have found that it is better to just stick

to one thing, which seems straight and honest, rather than

rummaging around in the New Age bookstore, hoping to pick up

tidbits from this or that author, because I have already done that,

and found that it was not beneficial.

 

Therefore most of my statements were backed by my 'personal' experience of the

traditional and non-traditional teachings

which I've encountered, and based on the things which I had

observed during the eleven long years that I wandered through,

what I would term as the, 'waste land,' of modern teachings of advaita, which I

found to be fraught with twisted ways which

turned out to be dead-ends.

 

For others who are fortunate enough not to have had such

experiences, I can understand that reading certain books,

and statements made by modern authors might prove inspiring

if such statements seem to match the understandings that

more traditional teachings of advaita give.

 

Unfortunately, I have seen way too much chicanery to be

tempted to wander wide-eyed in those realms again, where

the unwary or unlucky can fall into some pretty deep quagmires,

and only by 'grace' come out again.

 

Thus, I think it is better that I leave off discussing

these issues for the time-being. Although the self is one,

and the same 'experience' for all, we each of us see duality

through a different lens which is colored by our personal

experience. The lens through which I view the 'modern'

teachings of advaita is quite jaded, (if that's a color in the spectrum.) I

understand that others (because of their personal experiences or lack thereof)

may not see things in the same way.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Dear Devanathan-ji:

 

Sunder-ji quoted from sri Ramana who stated,

 

" The one Infnite Unbroken Whole (plenum) becomes aware of itself as

`I'. This is its original name. All other names, e.g., OM, are later

growths. Liberation is only to remain aware of the Self. The mahavakya " I am

Brahman " is its authority. Though the `I' is always experienced, yet one's

attention has to be drawn to it. Only then does knowledge dawn. Thus the

need for the instruction of the Upanishads and of wise sages. "

 

The central teaching is to bring our attention to our inner self. It is the

feeling of " I " that emerges as presence-awareness. If we are able to grasp

that and are satisfied with that, then our path is clear. Everything else is

commentary.

 

Truth is Pure Being and beyond thoughts and imagination.

 

Yours in Bhagavan

Harsha

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Antharyami

Sunday, June 07, 2009 1:42 PM

advaitin

Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

 

Hari OM~

 

Profound differences are patent to both end when it comes to philosophies

East and the West and real seekers will always appreaciate the profundity

that exist not between 'East and West' per-se but between 'idiosyncracies

and identities'. Accentuating ideosyncracies and identities is far-reaching

than just appropriating and assimilating all thoughts and falsely

attributing all of them at a stroke

unto Advaita.

 

 

 

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan.J

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

 

You have placed Tolle in 'Prathamakalpika' - the lowest rung of the lot. That is

understandable for the elaborate reasons mentioned in your mail. Yet, it is a

very debatable issue which I am not competent to follow up with you.

 

However, a doubt haunts me. Where in the four categories mentioned by you will

a thinker and academician belong assuming that a stotriyaM brahmaniShtaM guru

dwells in 'atikrantabhavaniyah' - the highest rung of the lot? If he is not

himself in 'atikrantabhavaniyah', does he have the authority and qualification

to sit in judgment of those languishing on any of these rungs?

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________

 

advaitin , Antharyami <sathvatha wrote:

 

.... I am a thinker too timid to withstand these threats. lol !! But now, as

> an academician by profession I think it is my duty indeed to keep writing be

> it what may come.

 

> According to Advaita Vedanta, Spiritual aspirants may be categorized into

> four vide, Prathamakalpika, Madhubhumika, Prajnajyotih and

> atikrantabhavaniyah.

......

> Hence Meister Eckehart, in my opinion is one Prathamakalpika, who can never

> be considered to have accomplished `Advaitic experience' for mere reasons to

> have embraced upon few common syllables of similarities with Advaita

> Vedanta.

[Guest guest]

Would the Pope or any minister or bishop preach AdvaitA or acknowledge that

someone like Ramana achieved salvation without first accepting Christ as

His one True God and Savior? Would a Maulvi consider that someone like

Amritananda Ma who rejected the idea that Allah was the one and only true

God and Reality had achieved the status of Total Oneness with the Supreme.

 

 

praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Well said prabhuji...why to go to maulvi-s, pope, ministers & bishops, even

within our own vaidika saMpradAya, people have 'difference' of opinion on

the 'knowledge status' of these personalities...It is a sad truth that

absolute dualists (for examble tattvavAdi dvaitins) do not want to accept

that personalities mentioned by you (like ramaNa, nisargadatta, parama

haMsa etc.) have achieved the 'ultimate'!! Because, according to them,

ultimate can be achieved ONLY at a foreign land like vaikunTa at the lotus

feet of four handed mahAvishNu...So, it is ONLY in our (selected few!!)

belief system we comfortably label someone as realized and someone else as

loukika, coz. we trace back their teachings to vedanta (ofcourse as we

understood it) :-)) Since in our advaita saMpradAya, we consider ramaNa,

nisargadatta, paramahamsa etc. are realized souls, we have to infer that

they might have undergone vedantic studies in their previous lives if not

in their current birth to realize that ultimate truth !! No need to

mention this inference has a valid base in shruti-s and shankara bhAshya

where it is expressly said : ' nAnyaH paNthA vidyateyanAya'.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

 

 

[Guest guest]

nair ji and devanathan ji :

 

non-duality means,something singular;aham brahmasmi.so,how do we go about

classifying into four different levels of understanding.isn't advaitham,all

inclusive without a second,in reality.i ask this to further understand various

statements written,so as to flow alongwith others here,for now i am stuck in a

whirlwind of statements.thnx.

 

suresh.