Guest guest Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Got the latest newsletter from advaita.org.uk. In it, among the articles, were 2 that both seemed reasonable, and both, as I recall, had within them opposite messages. One teacher was lauding the value of the mahavakyas. Another teacher was telling how words and what they describe were not the actualities. How to understand these two views? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 --- On Sat, 1/2/10, richarkar <richarkar wrote: Got the latest newsletter from advaita.org. uk. In it, among the articles, were 2 that both seemed reasonable, and both, as I recall, had within them opposite messages. One teacher was lauding the value of the mahavakyas. Another teacher was telling how words and what they describe were not the actualities. How to understand these two views? - Shree Richarkar - PraNAms Words and also sentences have two meanings - one is pada or vaakyaartha and the other is lakshyaartha. Essentially the direct meaning of the words and sentences and the second one is indicative meaning of the words. A simple example: I can describe the how tasty the cake is. All words and sentences of describing the cake -Still no knowledge of actuality. Words can be indicative of that what you are directly tasting then words have indicative meaning of what one is experiencing directly. For simple cake we have a problem of communication, what to mention about that which is quality less. Mahavaakyas provide the indicative meaning for those that are directly and intimately being experienced or the actualities. This is one explanation without knowing the details of the articles you are mentioning. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Dear Shri Richard, I could not make out which two articles you were referring to. If you could give details I shall try to answer. One of the articles in the latest issue was mine. Regards, S.N.Sastri advaitin , " richarkar " <richarkar wrote: > > Got the latest newsletter from advaita.org.uk. In it, among the articles, were 2 that both seemed reasonable, and both, as I recall, had within them opposite messages. > > One teacher was lauding the value of the mahavakyas. Another teacher was telling how words and what they describe were not the actualities. > > How to understand these two views? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Dear Sri S.N. Sastri, It is an honor to be addressing the writer of such an article. Do you presently teach? Ever come to the U.S.? I was referring to your article about mahavakyas, which really impressed me. Then I read the following which may or may not be at odds with the employment of mahavakyas: Taittiriya Upanishad (2.9.1) says that words turn back along with the mind, failing to reach Brahman. Sri Shankara points out in shloka 10 of his dashashlokI that none of the words such as `one', `absolute', etc., can be used to denote Brahman. The second article I mentioned was the one by Vijay Kapoor. In his answer to the question about Neo Advaita, part of the reply was, " Just by saying I am the awareness by itself is not enough; if I don't see the truth in all of its manifestations, I am fooling myself. " Would not the above quote speak to not placing too much emphasis on the mahavakyas? Thank you, Richard advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > Dear Shri Richard, > I could not make out which two articles you were referring to. If you could give details I shall try to answer. One of the articles in the latest issue was mine. > Regards, > S.N.Sastri > > advaitin , " richarkar " <richarkar@> wrote: > > > > Got the latest newsletter from advaita.org.uk. In it, among the articles, were 2 that both seemed reasonable, and both, as I recall, had within them opposite messages. > > > > One teacher was lauding the value of the mahavakyas. Another teacher was telling how words and what they describe were not the actualities. > > > > How to understand these two views? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 Dear Richard,Thank you for your mail.I used to teach the Gita and the upanishads but I am not doing it now. I have visited the U.S. four times and stayed there for 4 to 6 months each time. My son was working there. Now he is temporarily posted in Chennai where I live with him. As far as I can see, the statement by Vijay Kapoor does not mean that emphasis need not be placed on the mahavakyas. What he says is that merely saying " I am Brahman " is not enough. That is only intellectual knowledge. I must experience the Truth that I am Brahman, as Ramana Maharshi did. This is called aparoksha anubhUti or direct experience. As all the upanishads say, Brahman cannot be described or referred to by any words. That is why the implied meaning of the word 'tat' has to be resorted to. If you need any further clarification, kindly let me know. I have been enjoying seeing your photos of Thiruvannamalai. I have been speaking to my friends and relations with admiration about you and your wife, who have left the comforts of the U.S. to stay in Tiruvannamalai, when so many young Indians are doing just the opposite. Best wishes,S.N.SastriOn Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:13 AM, richarkar <richarkar wrote: Dear Sri S.N. Sastri, It is an honor to be addressing the writer of such an article. Do you presently teach? Ever come to the U.S.? I was referring to your article about mahavakyas, which really impressed me. Then I read the following which may or may not be at odds with the employment of mahavakyas: Taittiriya Upanishad (2.9.1) says that words turn back along with the mind, failing to reach Brahman. Sri Shankara points out in shloka 10 of his dashashlokI that none of the words such as `one', `absolute', etc., can be used to denote Brahman. The second article I mentioned was the one by Vijay Kapoor. In his answer to the question about Neo Advaita, part of the reply was, " Just by saying I am the awareness by itself is not enough; if I don't see the truth in all of its manifestations, I am fooling myself. " Would not the above quote speak to not placing too much emphasis on the mahavakyas? Thank you, Richard advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > Dear Shri Richard, > I could not make out which two articles you were referring to. If you could give details I shall try to answer. One of the articles in the latest issue was mine. > Regards, > S.N.Sastri > > advaitin , " richarkar " <richarkar@> wrote: > > > > Got the latest newsletter from advaita.org.uk. In it, among the articles, were 2 that both seemed reasonable, and both, as I recall, had within them opposite messages. > > > > One teacher was lauding the value of the mahavakyas. Another teacher was telling how words and what they describe were not the actualities. > > > > How to understand these two views? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2010 Report Share Posted January 4, 2010 Thank you Sri S.N. Sastri.... for your reply. It makes sense to me. The name " Richard " is not uncommon in the U.S. I am a different one from the admirable Richard, who went to Tiru. Unlike him, I seldom leave the comforts of my house (although we will be traveling to Haiti soon). Best wishes, Richard advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > Dear Richard, > Thank you for your mail. > I used to teach the Gita and the upanishads but I am not doing it now. > I have visited the U.S. four times and stayed there for 4 to 6 months each > time. My son was working there. Now he is temporarily posted in Chennai > where I live with him. > As far as I can see, the statement by Vijay Kapoor does not mean that > emphasis need not be placed on the mahavakyas. What he says is that merely > saying " I am Brahman " is not enough. That is only intellectual knowledge. I > must experience the Truth that I am Brahman, as Ramana Maharshi did. This is > called aparoksha anubhUti or direct experience. > As all the upanishads say, Brahman cannot be described or referred to by any > words. That is why the implied meaning of the word 'tat' has to be resorted > to. > If you need any further clarification, kindly let me know. > I have been enjoying seeing your photos of Thiruvannamalai. I have been > speaking to my friends and relations with admiration about you and your > wife, who have left the comforts of the U.S. to stay in Tiruvannamalai, when > so many young Indians are doing just the opposite. > Best wishes, > S.N.Sastri 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.