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 must be possible for a person to attain these two objectives by methods other than study of the upanishads. 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 do it? There are people who hold the view that the way we are studying the upanishads does not amount to ‘shravaNam’ in the strict sense of the term. 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 for doing shravaNam. 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. Such views have been expressed in the past by Acharyas like Appaya Dikshita. 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 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Hearty congratulations and kudos to Shri Sastri-ji for his 45468. I had once asked Sw. Dayanandaji if advaitic knowledge existed elsewhere in the world. His categorical answer was that it did in several cultures. The only difference, according to him, was that we, Indians, have developed a unique methodology not available elsewhere. Thus, Swamiji also seems to share Shri Sastri-ji's outlook despite having been stamped traditional. Pranams. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Respected sastry garu, Namaste. A few observations of mine. For every spiritual person there are 2 aspects which cannot be clearly understood either by pratyaksha and anumana pramana. They are: 1) Dharma 2) Paramatma. Hence, the pramana required here to understand these two aspects is the Shastra or Scriptures. The objective of the shastra is to know oneself and also the dharma. And hence, Bhagavan Krishna in Gita says: tasmAcchAstram pramANam te kAryAkAryavyavasthitau || jnAtvA shAstravidhAnoktam karma kartumihArhasi || Persons like Bhagavan Ramana, Nisargadatta, Ramakrishna etc. are avatara purushas and were a class apart. Certainly we *ordinary mortals* cannot emulate them. So, for ordinary mortals like us who are devoid of right discrimination, shastra alone can be the pramana and guiding spirit regarding the dharma and paramatma swarupa. Mind, as such, camoflaged by avidya, cannot judge on its own and hence in Mahabharata it is laid down that " Shabda brahmaNi nishNAta: param Brahma adhigacchati " ie., the ultimate can be known through scriptures and shastras. So, to learn about the swarupa of paramatma, the pramana is again the shastra which is established in B.Sutra *shAstrayonitvAt*. Now, of the various shAstras, veda occupies the primary position on account of its apaurusheyatva and nitya siddhatva. Works of realised seers which elaborate the veda and its purport which is in line with shruti are the secondary but are valid such as smriti, purana, agama, tantra etc. As per them, Shruti is the ultimate pramana and anything which is not in accordance with shruti is not acceptable. These secondary shastras aid our understanding of what is in accordance with the Sruti and what is not. The shruti describes Dharma through samhita and brahmana and Brahman through the vedanta. pravR^ittirvA nivR^ittirvA nityena kR^itakena vA | puMsAm yenopadishyeta tacChAstramabhidhIyate || Similarly, the secondary shastras of two classes. Smriti and Purana. But shastra jnana is required to study these 2 aspects. Since, objective of shastra adhyayana is the swa-swarupa jnana or the brahman, the conclusion is that dharma acharana through shastra adhyayana is the pre-requisite to know the brahma padartha which is also the prayojana or objective of shastra adhyayana. Thus the objective of shastra teaching dharma and the objective of shastra teaching brahman in swa-swarupa anusandhana. Also, the smriti says that *taph svadhyaya niratam..* which implies that it is the tapas & svadhyaya in accordance with the shruti which is important. Thus, one is advised to revere shabda brahman which is the shastra and the parabrahman who is not only the shastrayoni but also shastra pratipadya. Shastras are hence important, so are the vihita karmas but the lakshya of these should always be recognized as the paramatman The Mahabharata too lays down that we can know the Ultimate only by studying the shastras " Shabda brahmaNi nishNAta: param Brahma adhigacchati " Now coming to the point, Shri Appayya Dikshitar says that *ishwara anugrahena......pumsam advaita vasana*, it is through the *Grace* of Sadguru in the form of Ishwara that one is established in Advaita Siddhi. So, the question now arises. When Vedas are for 1st three varnas, then is there a way for liberation prescribed for 4th varna. The answer is YES. There are 2 aspects here. One is *veda adhyayana* and other is *veda abhyasa*. Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi clearly describes the distinction when one of the ashram disciples belonging to 4th varna was studying veda during the daily recital of veda parayana at the Ashram. His advice to this person was *veda abhyasa* and not *veda adhyayana*. Moreover, among the Secondary Shastras, one of the most important aspect of shastra is *Tantra*. Tantra opens the gate to all irrespective of the caste, creed and religion. As i keep mentioning that Tantra is a *practical approach and guide* which gives out the *methodology* - a step-by-step process towards this brahmananda siddhi. I would like to cite out a few examples of great tantrics who was not only foreign to our *indian tradition* but also ignorant of our deva bhasha (sanskrit). To name a few: Sir Arthur Avalon alias John Woodroof, Shri Monier Williams, Shri George Cardona, Sir Norman Brown, Sir CP Brown, Sir Max Mueller etc. Having come to India, learnt sanskrit under spiritual perceptors and transformed their lives. They stand a class apart. For instance, Arthur Avalon, who was a great srividya upasaka, also Sir CP Brown. We would have lost many tantric manuscripts and scriptures had Shri Avalon not took pains and translated them into english. Similarly, Max Mueller, Williams. Since, i am a student of tantra in general and srividya in particular, may be, it was my natural inclination to vote for Tantra Shastra. Just my 2 cents. regs, sriram advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > 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 must be possible for a person to attain these two objectives > by methods other than study of the upanishads. > > > > 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 do it? There are people who hold the > view that the way we are studying the upanishads does not amount to > `shravaNam' in the strict sense of the term. 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 for doing shravaNam. 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. Such views have been expressed in the past by Acharyas > like Appaya Dikshita. > > > > 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 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Dear Sastri-ji: Thank you for your post. It is clear and makes perfect sense to me. Being a very learned person, you are able to state things in such a way that many of us would not be able to. However, I am able to follow your logic. Thank you for your beautiful writing. Namaste and love to all Yours in Bhagavan Harsha advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of S.N. Sastri Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:19 AM advaitin Re- Advaita vedanta and Buddhism 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 must be possible for a person to attain these two objectives by methods other than study of the upanishads. 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 do it? There are people who hold the view that the way we are studying the upanishads does not amount to 'shravaNam' in the strict sense of the term. 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 for doing shravaNam. 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. Such views have been expressed in the past by Acharyas like Appaya Dikshita. 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 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 sastri ji: this is one of the best posts that i have read recently.my spiritual stage of understanding reflects and synchs exactly what you write.thanks for putting it so cogently. suresh. advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > 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 must be possible for a person to attain these two objectives > by methods other than study of the upanishads. > > > > 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 do it? There are people who hold the > view that the way we are studying the upanishads does not amount to > `shravaNam' in the strict sense of the term. 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 for doing shravaNam. 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. Such views have been expressed in the past by Acharyas > like Appaya Dikshita. > > > > 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 --- On Wed, 6/3/09, sriram <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: Now coming to the point, Shri Appayya Dikshitar says that *ishwara anugrahena.. .....pumsam advaita vasana*, it is through the *Grace* of Sadguru in the form of Ishwara that one is established in Advaita Siddhi. ----------- Sriramji - PraNAms Just for the record. The above statement originally comes from Avadhuuta gita of Dattatreya not from Appaya Dikshitar. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 advaitin , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: Dear Sriram, Thanks for your very knowledgeable post, which quite befits a descendent of the great Kavya Kanta Muni. I fully agree with you. You will notice that in my last post in the very first sentence I had referred to the upanishadic path as a systematic one. I have not denied the importance of this path. I am a serious student of the upanishads and I am striving through this path. But what I said was that for those, particularly those belonging to other traditions, who are ignorant of this path or are not able to follow it for some reason, all doors are not barred. Their culure also must have means suited to them by which they can attain the goal. You have described Nisarga Datta Maharaj and Amritanandamayi as avataras. It has become a habit with some of us to call every realized person an avatara. An avatara is God taking a form in the world as a human being, or animal, or fish, etc. If every realized person is only God Himself who has taken the form of a human being, then it would mean that no human being has ever risen to the level of a realized person. That would mean that there is no hope for human beings like us. I am puzzled by this description of every realized person as an avatara. On the other hand it would be more proper to say that they were human beings who rose to the level of God. Finally, I am a Tamilian with roots in Kerala and so not entitled to the honour of being addressed as Sastri Garu. 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 advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > Hearty congratulations and kudos to Shri Sastri-ji for his 45468. > > I had once asked Sw. Dayanandaji if advaitic knowledge existed elsewhere in the world. His categorical answer was that it did in several cultures. The only difference, according to him, was that we, Indians, have developed a unique methodology not available elsewhere. > > Thus, Swamiji also seems to share Shri Sastri-ji's outlook despite having been stamped traditional. > > Pranams. > > Madathil Nair Dear Nair-ji, Thanks for your appreciation which I value highly. One of my teachers, who is an orthodox Brahmin and even more traditional than Swami Dayanandaji said the same thing. 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 advaitin , " sureshbalaraman " <sureshbalaraman wrote: > > sastri ji: > > this is one of the best posts that i have read recently.my spiritual stage of understanding reflects and synchs exactly what you write.thanks for putting it so cogently. > > suresh. Dear Suresh-ji, Thanks for your appreciation. 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 sastri-ji, Pranams. You have humbled me by mentioning my posts knowledgeable. It is a childish blabber. Infact, I am enjoying your enlightening posts. with warm 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 Dear Sriram-ji and Sastri-ji: I bow before you both for gifting us with the experience and wisdom of the great traditions of Self-Realization. And also so many others here... Sada-ji and Professor Krishnamurthy-ji and Shyam-ji and Nair-ji....too many people to mention who contribute in ways which are immensely enriching to us. Thanks you and with gratitude. Namaste and love Yours in Bhagavan Harsh advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of sriram Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:26 AM advaitin Re: Re- Advaita vedanta and Buddhism Dear sastri-ji, Pranams. You have humbled me by mentioning my posts knowledgeable. It is a childish blabber. Infact, I am enjoying your enlightening posts. with warm 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 Dear Sastri Ji You are indeed a bold, clear thinker. Hats off to you Sir. rgds IK advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > 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 must be possible for a person to attain these two objectives > by methods other than study of the upanishads. > > > > 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 do it? There are people who hold the > view that the way we are studying the upanishads does not amount to > `shravaNam' in the strict sense of the term. 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 for doing shravaNam. 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. Such views have been expressed in the past by Acharyas > like Appaya Dikshita. > > > > 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 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 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. Humble praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji Hare Krishna I am really surprising to see statements like this from your goodself prabhuji..If shruti vAkya janita jnAna is NOT the ONLY means for Atmaikatva jnAna, then we have to straightaway push aside somany bhAshya vAkya-s of Shankara and declaration of Sureshwara in naishkarmya siddhi & vArtika-s. Here I'd like to give just one example (there are plenty of quotes like this in bhAshya-s) where shankara expressly denies the possibility of brahman being the object of 'other' pramANa-s : // quote // As for what was said (by the opponent) that brahman being an already existent entity, pramANa-s other (than vedAnta sAstra) may apply to It, that is only a fancy. For having no form and the like (qualities) and being devoid of a Linga(sign indicating something connected with it) etc. It is no object of inference (anumAna) and other pramANa-s. It is to be known exclusively through Agama (shAstra) like dharma. So says the sruti : This knowledge is not to be got (or refuted) through speculation, it leads to a right intuition, my dear boy when taught by a person, quite other than the speculator (KathOpanishad 2-9), ' who knows clearly and who can express it by words, from whence this variety' of creation has issued forth ? (Rig veda 10-129-6). these two riks show how the cause of the universe is difficult to conceive even for perfect men. (sUtra bhAshya 2-1-6) // unquote// shankara expressly uses the word 'AgamamAtrasamAdhigamyaH' to drive home the point that ONLY shAstra is the pramANa. Anyway, prabhuji, since you are well familiar with all these quotes of shankara & sureshwara, I donot have to elaborate further on this issue. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Dear Bhaskarji, I need your help here. Heavens prevent hell breaking loose over me for asking the following questions: 1. The English translation provided by you says 'Agama (shAstra) like dharma'. What does that word 'dharma' signify? Is it dharma shAstra? Why is it specifically mentioned? The statement could have directly referred to the Upanishads or the term shruti instead of using a more or less general word 'Agama'? 2. Brahman cannot be known by 'other pramANAs'. Inference and speculation are given as examples, which makes it clear that Brahman cannot be the goal of an objective type of enquiry. It needs to be intuited. Now, can intuiting on the words of a non-Shankarite master (vishiShta, bhakti etc.) who is thorough with the AgamAs (whatever that term means) as per his sampradAya help in imparting right knowledge? 3. If yes, can a Westerner who is trained in Vedanta in English language do that effectively? Please don't misunderstand me for asking these questions. We need clarity here. Best regards. Madathil Nair _____________________ advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > If shruti vAkya janita jnAna is NOT the ONLY means for Atmaikatva > jnAna, then we have to straightaway push aside somany bhAshya vAkya-s of > Shankara and declaration of Sureshwara in naishkarmya siddhi & vArtika-s. > Here I'd like to give just one example (there are plenty of quotes like > this in bhAshya-s) where shankara expressly denies the possibility of > brahman being the object of 'other' pramANa-s : > > // quote // > > As for what was said (by the opponent) that brahman being an already > existent entity, pramANa-s other (than vedAnta sAstra) may apply to It, > that is only a fancy. For having no form and the like (qualities) and > being devoid of a Linga(sign indicating something connected with it) etc. > It is no object of inference (anumAna) and other pramANa-s. It is to be > known exclusively through Agama (shAstra) like dharma. So says the sruti : > This knowledge is not to be got (or refuted) through speculation, it leads > to a right intuition, my dear boy when taught by a person, quite other than > the speculator (KathOpanishad 2-9), ' who knows clearly and who can express > it by words, from whence this variety' of creation has issued forth ? (Rig > veda 10-129-6). these two riks show how the cause of the universe is > difficult to conceive even for perfect men. (sUtra bhAshya 2-1-6) > > // unquote// > > shankara expressly uses the word 'AgamamAtrasamAdhigamyaH' to drive home > the point that ONLY shAstra is the pramANa. Anyway, prabhuji, since you are > well familiar with all these quotes of shankara & sureshwara, I donot have > to elaborate further on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Dear Bhaskarji. Further to my 45606. We also have to remember the context and times of Shankara. He was mainly confronting the ideas of Buddhists and his contemporary rivals. He hadn't a Bhagawan Ramana, Nisargadatta or a Western mystic in sight. We do not know what he would have thought of them. Best regards. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 praNAms Sri MN prabhuji Hare Krishna Here is what I'd like to share with you. 1. The English translation provided by you says 'Agama (shAstra) like dharma'. What does that word 'dharma' signify? Is it dharma shAstra? Why is it specifically mentioned? The statement could have directly referred to the Upanishads or the term shruti instead of using a more or less general word 'Agama'? > I think we have to read the full sentence here to understand the context. i.e. *It is to be known exclusively through Agama (shAstra) like dharma*...shankara here referring, like in dharma jignAsa (shortly mentioned as 'dharma' in the above bhAshya vAkya), brahma jignAsa also to be done ONLY through Agama (AgamamAtrasamadhigamyaH). The difference between dharma jignAsa & brahma jignAsa has been discussed by shankara in sUtra bhAshya 1-1-2...Here shankara says for dharma jignAsa, shAstra is the sole authority whereas in brahma jignAsa shAstra and intuition etc. also are the valid pramANa-s. Why shankara used general term like Agama instead of shAstra or shruti or vedanta or upanishat in this particular bhAshya vAkya?? Kindly pardon me prabhuji, I donot know the answer!! It is his choice of words..However shankara elsewhere exclusively uses specific terminologies like vAkyArtha, shAstra, vedAnta, upanishat etc. (for examples 'vAkyajanita vijnAna mAtra' in bruhadAraNyaka 1-4-7, 'shAstrOpadesha janita vijnAnena' in 4-4-6 etc.) Anyway, if we understand the context & pUrvapaxi's objections in this sUtrAdhikaraNa, it is quite evident that the word 'Agama' referred here is Veda-s or vedAnta. 2. Brahman cannot be known by 'other pramANAs'. Inference and speculation are given as examples, which makes it clear that Brahman cannot be the goal of an objective type of enquiry. It needs to be intuited. Now, can intuiting on the words of a non-Shankarite master (vishiShta, bhakti etc.) who is thorough with the AgamAs (whatever that term means) as per his sampradAya help in imparting right knowledge? > what is that right knowledge?? according to us (advaitins or shankara followers) right knowledge is Atmaikatva jnAna if this knowledge of vedanta is being imparted by the non-shankarite master, then, with or without his knowledge he would be following the tradition..is it not?? If the upanishadik 'right knowledge' itself is a subject for deliberation, how can we expect a desired result from the non-shankarite or avaidik teachers?? So, if you ask me, as a shankara vedanta follower, I dont say right knowledge is possible through any other means :-)) 3. If yes, can a Westerner who is trained in Vedanta in English language do that effectively? > I dont think vedAntik knowledge has the language barrier!! However, shankara time and again insists on the importance of sticking to the bonafide vedAnta saMpradAya... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Shri Bhaskarji, Pranams in your mail to Shri Nairji you mentioned quote: whereas in brahma jignAsa shAstra and intuition etc. also are the valid pramANa-s Would you please be so kind and expand on this " etc. " ? As I did not study brahma jignAsa shAstra yet, I have no idea what this could refer to. Thank you Om Shanti Sitara --- Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr schrieb am Mo, 8.6.2009: Von: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr Betreff: Re: Re: Re- Advaita vedanta and Buddhism An: advaitin Datum: Montag, 8. Juni 2009, 21:53 praNAms Sri MN prabhuji Hare Krishna Here is what I'd like to share with you. 1. The English translation provided by you says 'Agama (shAstra) like dharma'. What does that word 'dharma' signify? Is it dharma shAstra? Why is it specifically mentioned? The statement could have directly referred to the Upanishads or the term shruti instead of using a more or less general word 'Agama'? > I think we have to read the full sentence here to understand the context. i.e. *It is to be known exclusively through Agama (shAstra) like dharma*...shankara here referring, like in dharma jignAsa (shortly mentioned as 'dharma' in the above bhAshya vAkya), brahma jignAsa also to be done ONLY through Agama (AgamamAtrasamadhig amyaH). The difference between dharma jignAsa & brahma jignAsa has been discussed by shankara in sUtra bhAshya 1-1-2...Here shankara says for dharma jignAsa, shAstra is the sole authority whereas in brahma jignAsa shAstra and intuition etc. also are the valid pramANa-s. Why shankara used general term like Agama instead of shAstra or shruti or vedanta or upanishat in this particular bhAshya vAkya?? Kindly pardon me prabhuji, I donot know the answer!! It is his choice of words..However shankara elsewhere exclusively uses specific terminologies like vAkyArtha, shAstra, vedAnta, upanishat etc. (for examples 'vAkyajanita vijnAna mAtra' in bruhadAraNyaka 1-4-7, 'shAstrOpadesha janita vijnAnena' in 4-4-6 etc.) Anyway, if we understand the context & pUrvapaxi's objections in this sUtrAdhikaraNa, it is quite evident that the word 'Agama' referred here is Veda-s or vedAnta. 2. Brahman cannot be known by 'other pramANAs'. Inference and speculation are given as examples, which makes it clear that Brahman cannot be the goal of an objective type of enquiry. It needs to be intuited. Now, can intuiting on the words of a non-Shankarite master (vishiShta, bhakti etc.) who is thorough with the AgamAs (whatever that term means) as per his sampradAya help in imparting right knowledge? > what is that right knowledge?? according to us (advaitins or shankara followers) right knowledge is Atmaikatva jnAna if this knowledge of vedanta is being imparted by the non-shankarite master, then, with or without his knowledge he would be following the tradition..is it not?? If the upanishadik 'right knowledge' itself is a subject for deliberation, how can we expect a desired result from the non-shankarite or avaidik teachers?? So, if you ask me, as a shankara vedanta follower, I dont say right knowledge is possible through any other means :-)) 3. If yes, can a Westerner who is trained in Vedanta in English language do that effectively? > I dont think vedAntik knowledge has the language barrier!! However, shankara time and again insists on the importance of sticking to the bonafide vedAnta saMpradAya.. . Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Would you please be so kind and expand on this " etc. " ? As I did not study brahma jignAsa shAstra yet, I have no idea what this could refer to. praNAms Sitara mAtAji Hare Krishna I was trying to say that for both dharma & brahma jignAsa, shAstra is the means...But for the former (dharma jignAsa) shAstra is the ONLY means since the fruit of this dharma jignAsa (which is karma pradhAna) is a future event...there is no separate shAstra called brahman jignAsa shAstra...for both dharma & brahma jignAsa, veda-s are the common premise....shankara discusses this very subject in the very first sUtra 'athAtho brahma jignAsa'...( jaimini's (jaimini sUtra) dharma jignAsa starts with the sUtra : atha dharma jignAsa. Kindly refer shankara's sUtra bhAshya 1-1-2...shankara while describing brahma jignAsa says for doing brahma jignAsa shruti etc. and anubhava etc. are valid means whereas in dharma jignAsa ONLY shAstra is the pramANa as it deals with 'adrushta phala'.. shrutyAdayOnubhavadayAshcha, are the exact words used by shankara in his bhAshya...shrutyAdi here means shruti, smruti, purANa itihAsa etc. anubhavAdi means intuition & like (mananaM through shrutyanugrahIta tarka)... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Dear Bhaskarji. Further to my 45606. We also have to remember the context and times of Shankara. He was mainly confronting the ideas of Buddhists and his contemporary rivals. He hadn't a Bhagawan Ramana, Nisargadatta or a Western mystic in sight. We do not know what he would have thought of them. praNAms Sri MN prabhuji Hare Krishna Yes I do agree...But shankar did speak about atyAshrami-s and others like vidhura, dharmavyAdha, vAchaknavi etc. who attained the self realization with the means other than vEda-s as they donot have the adhikAra to do vedAdhyayana. But as far as I know, shankara never ever suggested any other alternative means for those who do have the adhikAra in vedAdhyayana..For them vEda-s are the one & only means. With regard to 'Agama' I would like to add something here..Agama can be understood here as 'traditional intuitive method' and it cannot be confused with Agama-s popularly knows as 'shaivAgama' pancharAtrAgama' 'bauddhAgama' etc. etc. Here it should be understood as vedAgama i.e the traditional method of instruction of the veda-s has been handed down through the teachings of a line of bonafide spiritual preceptors (avichhinna guru parampara). Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Namaste to all. I am sorry that two innocuous posts by me have caused so much agitation to some members and created the impression that I am questioning the supremacy of advaita Vedanta itself. I yield to none in my respect for the upanishads, the bhAShya and other advaitic works. I have made a serious study of the upanishads and the bhAShya in the traditional way and have tried to understand them to the best of my ability. I am thankful to Shyamji, Devanathanji, Bhaskarji, Putranji and others who have explained in detail the purport of the upanishads. Devanathanji has come in after a long time to ensure that advaita Vedanta is not destroyed by people like me. I would request these members to read calmly what I am writing below, without getting excited and taking up a defensive position. This is not a confrontation between me and them. Some religions claim that salvation can be attained through them alone. This is because the adherents of those religions feel that their religion needs protection. They are eager to extend the reach of their religion by resorting to conversion of adherents of other religions to their religion. Hinduism is probably the only religion which does not make any claim that salvation can be reached through it alone and does not have any provision for conversion from other religions. This is because the Hindus never saw any need to protect their religion by such means. These features did not in anyway reduce the greatness of Hinduism, but only enhanced it. Similarly it is my view that it is not necessary to claim any exclusiveness for advaita Vedanta in order to preserve its greatness. In my posts I accepted the fact that advaita lays down a systematic means to liberation. I have not said that the upanishads and the bhAShya should be discarded and that Tolle's book should be studied by those who aspire for liberation. In spite of my age I have not, by God's grace, become so senile as to put forward such a proposition. But some of the posts make me think that the writers have formed such an impression. I feel that the greatness of advaita Vedanta will not in any way be diminished even if there are other means of liberation in other cultures. I have not said that there are other means. I have only said that we, human beings, with our limited knowledge, cannot totally deny such a possibility. According to advaita all human beings are brahman, to whichever region or religion they may belong. They are all the same for God. That is our great philosophy. This being so, how can we assert that God has provided the means of realization only to us in the whole world? As I have pointed out in my earlier post, according to Shri Shankara himself the non-dvijas who are not entitled to study the vedas can get enlightenment through the purANas, etc which are pauruSheya. They are not entitled to have the mahAvkya imparted to them. This shows that the upanishads and the mahAvAkya are not the only means of attaining enlightenment. shravaNam has been defined as below: Vedanta saara,ch.5, para 182—Hearing is the determination, by the application of the six characteristic signs, that the purport of the entire Vedanta is the non-dual Brahman. The six signs are—(1)the beginning and the conclusion, (2)repetition, (3)originality, (4)result, (5)eulogy and (6)demonstration. The Sanskrit terms for these are, respectively, upakramopasamhaara, abhyaasa, apuurvataa, phala, arthavaada, upapatti. So shravaNam means study of the Vedanta, which means the upanishads. PurANas are not Vedanta though they may contain the essence of the teachings of Vedanta. Study of the purANas cannot be called shravaNam. This shows that enlightenment can be attained by means other than shravaNam also. As far as I am concerned, this subject is closed. I do not wish to go on arguing endlessly. I do not have the energy for it. If anybody thinks that I am belittling the upanishads it is only his own misunderstanding and I am not in the least worried about it. Regards, S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Shri Bhaskarji, Pranams thank you for the reply. Still, I am not clear about this " & like " . You explainedquote anubhavAdi means intuition & like (mananaM through shrutyanugrahIta tarka)... I do not understand the term shrutyanugrahIta tarka (does it refer to the teaching by a shrotiya?). Besides there is a general doubt in my mind about what exactly is meant by intuition or anubhava when mentioned in the scriptures. I understand it to mean impression on the mind not derived from memory ; experience , knowledge derived from personal observation or experiment (ref. Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon), which is not quite the same as manana. Om Shanti Sitara --- Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr schrieb am Di, 9.6.2009: Von: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr Betreff: Re: Re: Re- Advaita vedanta and Buddhism An: advaitin Datum: Dienstag, 9. Juni 2009, 1:55 Would you please be so kind and expand on this " etc. " ? As I did not study brahma jignAsa shAstra yet, I have no idea what this could refer to. praNAms Sitara mAtAji Hare Krishna I was trying to say that for both dharma & brahma jignAsa, shAstra is the means...But for the former (dharma jignAsa) shAstra is the ONLY means since the fruit of this dharma jignAsa (which is karma pradhAna) is a future event...there is no separate shAstra called brahman jignAsa shAstra...for both dharma & brahma jignAsa, veda-s are the common premise....shankara discusses this very subject in the very first sUtra 'athAtho brahma jignAsa'...( jaimini's (jaimini sUtra) dharma jignAsa starts with the sUtra : atha dharma jignAsa. Kindly refer shankara's sUtra bhAshya 1-1-2...shankara while describing brahma jignAsa says for doing brahma jignAsa shruti etc. and anubhava etc. are valid means whereas in dharma jignAsa ONLY shAstra is the pramANa as it deals with 'adrushta phala'.. shrutyAdayOnubhavad ayAshcha, are the exact words used by shankara in his bhAshya...shrutyAdi here means shruti, smruti, purANa itihAsa etc. anubhavAdi means intuition & like (mananaM through shrutyanugrahIta tarka)... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 praNAms Smt. Sitara mAtAji Hare Krishna I do not understand the term shrutyanugrahIta tarka (does it refer to the teaching by a shrotiya?). > shrutyanugrahIta tarka means, tarka that should have the base in shruti and anubhava. It is not mere shushka tarka (dry logic)...For those who donot have the capacity or qualification (adhikAra) to realize the ultimate reality of Atman through 'Agama' alone, the scriptures teach through tarka..Shankara says this tarka should have the base in shruti-s & should not contradict universal anubhava (sarvatrika pUrNAnubhava). Normally in brahma jignAsa, vedAntins donot use mere empirical logic, instead they use the logic that has been used in the scriptures. The manner in which the jignAsu discriminates intuitively by means of such scriptural logic is called 'mananaM'...This kind of intuitive reasoning is called 'shrauta tarka' or 'shrutyanugrahIta tarka' i.e. in short, logic or reasoning based on or used in all the shruti-s. Ofcourse, this mananaM should be done under the able guidance of shrOtrIya & brahmanishTa guru. Besides there is a general doubt in my mind about what exactly is meant by intuition or anubhava when mentioned in the scriptures. > this is very important..Anubhava does not here mean 'individual subjective experiece' it is universal experience of one and all...If some mystic says, see this is my experience, therefore you have to agree or accept it...na!! we are not going to entertain it..after all it is his own experience, how can I trust it!!?? vedanta/shankara does not teach the doctrines which is puresly based on individual experience..So, here anubhava means the knowledge which is the real entity and not a mere feeling / concept /itching imprinted on the individual mind screen. Shankara bhagavatpAda has called this kind of universal intuitive experience as 'anubhava'. It is his recommendation that logical disputation (shrauta tarka) should be carried on in accordance with this universal experience (sArvatrika pUrNa anubhava). Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 I am thankful to Shyamji, Devanathanji, Bhaskarji, Putranji and others who have explained in detail the purport of the upanishads. Devanathanji has come in after a long time to ensure that advaita Vedanta is not destroyed by people like me. If anybody thinks that I am belittling the upanishads it is only his own misunderstanding and I am not in the least worried about it. Humble praNAms respected Sri Sastri prabhuji Hare Krishna Kindly forgive me if at all my mail give you an impression that I am questioning your credence to the traditional approach to truth...that was not at all my intention prabhuji. Just I was trying to point out that shankara shows his stance in such a way that according to him shAstra vAkya janita jnAna alone is the valid means for liberation and nothing else..My ego-centric mind wanted to show that with a quote from shankara bhAshya that's it!!! prabhuji, I am just a 'lip vedAntin' how can I dare to confront your goodself who is doing advaita sAdhana through kAya, vAcha, manasa... I onceagain offer my unconditional apology if my mail hurt your sentiments prabhuji. first I sould learn to keep quiet in the sensitive issues like this :-( Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Pranams Baskarji thank you for your reply. There is one doubt left in my mind. I understand when you point outB: Anubhava does not here mean 'individual
subjective experiece' it is universal experience of one and all...If some
mystic says, see this is my experience, therefore you have to agree or
accept it...na!! we are not going to entertain it..after all it is his own
experience, how can I trust it!!??Also that it is B: not a mere
feeling / concept /itching imprinted on the individual mind screen. Then you go on sayingB: So, here
anubhava means the knowledge which is the real entity I do not understand this expression. And I do not understand how someone doing mananam should have that already or recognize whether someone else has it. In case, these questions are irrelevant, please do not bother to reply. My understanding of scriptures and the sanskrit terms used is very limited. Om Shanti Sitara --- Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr schrieb am Mi, 10.6.2009: Von: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr Betreff: Re: Re: Re- Advaita vedanta and Buddhism An: advaitin Datum: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2009, 1:29 praNAms Smt. Sitara mAtAji Recent Activity  9 New Members  1 New Photos  2 New Links Visit Your Group Finance It's Now Personal Guides, news, advice & more. Y! Messenger Group get-together Host a free online conference on IM. Group Charity Stop Cyberbullying Keep your kids safe from bullying . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 PranAms, For a perspective on this issue with regards to mananam and nidhidhyasanam: http://www.adi-shankara.org/search?q=mananam Hari OM Shyam --- On Thu, 6/11/09, smitali17 <smitali17 wrote: smitali17 <smitali17 Re: Re: Re- Advaita vedanta and Buddhism advaitin Thursday, June 11, 2009, 12:09 PM Pranams Baskarji I do not understand this expression. And I do not understand how someone doing mananam should have that already or recognize whether someone else has it. In case, these questions are irrelevant, please do not bother to reply. My understanding of scriptures and the sanskrit terms used is very limited. Om Shanti Sitara Recent Activity 10 New Members 1 New Photos 2 New LinksVisit Your Group Give Back for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. .. 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.