Guest guest Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Namaskarams, Shastriji asked to close the " Essays... " topic and I may be going out of bounds with this. But I thought it is worth using the opportunity to make this point which is also relevant to people here. The following was written a year+ back. It is not perfect perhaps in its analysis but there are some central points that I think are important for Hindus to be aware of. (The topic is not directly related to Advaita philosophy; if not in scope of discussion, the moderators can stop it - my apology.) Prophetizing trend in modern Hinduism I would like to raise a controversial topic in our religion. No, not the caste system, rather it is the modern trend to incarnation/prophet-making by the disciples of great saints. What about Rama, Krishna? Well, is there proof that an organized attempt to propagate their names followed from their time onward? How about we consider instead Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad – the real trend setters of prophet-centric religions? The difference may be fancied as subtle, but it is a big one if we care for the ways of pre-colonial Hinduism. The concept of incarnation, specifically Lord Vishnu taking birth on Earth to establish Dharma, is accepted by Smartas and Vaisnavas on scriptural basis; see Bhagavad Gita 4.5-9. From the puranas/ithihasas, we learn of particular incarnations like Rama and Krishna. However Hinduism has (in general) no tradition of massive organizations of disciples seeking to promote their human-gurus as incarnations of God. In recent times, this concept whose roots are in Puranic lore has become liberated. Buddha, Jesus, Sri Ramakrishna and many of our times are all incarnations of God to the liberal minded Hindu, with the usage of " God " ensuring that the incarnation is not personality-subordinate to a Hindu deity. The basis of determination is no longer the scripture but rather a subjective conclusion that such great men (say) were `perfect from birth' and that their influence on humanity verifies their status. Now if we properly discern, we will find that the incarnation-making tradition in post-colonial Hinduism is parallel to the prophet-centric religions. A prophet-centric religion revolves around a great saint. The message of the saint may be universally applicable, but the organization that preaches on his behalf deliberately propagates his name, not merely as a representative of an eternal message but almost as its owner/originator. Moreover, the pathetic thrust is to make universal the devotional-context of the organization, obviously directed towards or through its prophet. That is, the organization, due to inherent insecurity and greed for foreign markets, is in the business of proselytizing; in abrahamic cults, this is blatant, in modern Hinduism, more subtle but none-the-less the same. The Ramakrishna Math and organizations today of Hindu gurus who stand independent of established sampradaya have all derived inspiration from the prophet models of non-Hindu faiths. The influence is evident in the manner of expression: literary propaganda that stresses the guru's specialty, constructions of guru-deifying temples that seem alienated from Hinduism, and most critically, directing the devotional context of the organization solely to or through the guru. This effectively allows the organization to stand independent of Hindu culture, except in a superficial sense that is equally applicable to associating with non-Hindu faiths. The service of the poor and the garnering of human resources for this purpose may also find easier execution through the prophet-model; these may be the underlying nobler intentions. However I feel these must be incorporated without promoting our gurus as incarnations of God – this is a trap which our religion has historically avoided. Now let us consider guru-worship within our religion more carefully. At the philosophical level, every Smarta will say " Adi Shankara says this, says that… " and every Sri Vaishnava will say " Sri Ramanuja says this, says that… " Are they not prophetized? Well, admittedly the establishment of Guru-centralized sampradayas came at a later stage in our religion, but thankfully the gurus themselves made it clear that they represented only the scripture/Vedic tradition and not themselves. And this is exactly how every Smarta and Vaishnava sees their adi-guru. The disciple is of course free to worship the guru as one with, or even incarnation of a deity, but the devotional context that the sampradaya speaks for is directed to Ishvara – and very importantly, seen as Shiva, Vishnu, etc., and not as the guru (no `only savior', `last prophet' either). That a sampradaya's devotional objective stands independent of its human-guru is a defining feature of traditional Hinduism. In this regard, a quote of Sri Ramakrishna is worth referring to. He said to a devotee who referred to the saint as God: " I look on myself as a devotee of Krishna, not as Krishna Himself. You may think as you like. You may look on your guru as God. " The same Sri Ramakrishna also gave more eclectic interpretations for the word " incarnation " ; definitely they have their place, but in our world unfortunately any room to over-interpret can be a disaster. It is the responsibility of modern Hindu organizations to stop pandering to and utilizing the ways of Abrahamic religions. Propagate your gurus as great saints who exemplified the Sanatana Dharma; build them temples if you must, but know that a " Universal temple of [My Guru who is your God] " is neither universal nor Hinduism: it is " radical " hypocrisy and ultimately hurting us all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Dear Putran-j, I find your arguments too complicated for me. All that I want to say is that the shloka Gurur Brahma GururvishnuH etc., which says that the Guru should be looked upon as God is a shloka in the Skanda purana which is not post-colonial. I do not know whether this amounts to prophetizing according to you. Best wishes, S.N.Sastri advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote: > > Namaskarams, Shastriji asked to close the " Essays... " topic and I may be going out of bounds with this. But I thought it is worth using the opportunity to make this point which is also relevant to people here. The following was written a year+ back. It is not perfect perhaps in its analysis but there are some central points that I think are important for Hindus to be aware of. (The topic is not directly related to Advaita philosophy; if not in scope of discussion, the moderators can stop it - my apology.) > > > Prophetizing trend in modern Hinduism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Shastriji, I don't think so. I also tried to address this in my last-but-one paragraph: " The disciple is of course free to worship the guru as one with, or even incarnation of a deity, but the devotional context that the sampradaya speaks for is directed to Ishvara – and very importantly, seen as Shiva, Vishnu, etc., and not as the guru (no `only savior', `last prophet' either). That a sampradaya's devotional objective stands independent of its human-guru is a defining feature of traditional Hinduism. " What I am against is not how the individual disciple approaches his/her guru but rather how the organization projects its guru to the general public. As I understand in Shankara mathas, the primary deity of worship is not Adi Shankara but Shiva or Sharadamba; the Ishta devatas endorsed by Shankara himself are Shiva, Vishnu, etc. The mathas spreads devotion primarily through what is recorded in our puranas, etc. This is in stark contrast from the RK Math wherein the central deity is Sri Ramakrishna and much effort is made to publicize him as God and to mythologize his life. The attempt to focus a sampradaya's devotional context (at the organizational level) entirely through its Guru is something out of tune with tradition. (All this is pushed deliberately by smart people running the show. Is there any reason to hear that Sri Ramakrishna is Avataaravarishta every time you click on the cassette of MS singing Vishnusahasranamam or Bhajagovindam?) Secondly, Shankara represents the Vedas and not himself. The fundamental credit is always and very clearly transferred to the Scriptures. Do we wish to see it otherwise and suggest that Advaita is Shankara's own creation? That is sacrilege and every advaitin here knows it. I appreciated Dasgupta's remarks in that article for the sole reason that he saw Sri Ramakrishna as a manifestation of what is already within the heart of the Sanatana Dharma - the credit is entirely transferred, and justly so. When the organization seeks to prevent this transfer-process and hold it for its founder, there is prophetization. thollmelukaalkizhu advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > Dear Putran-j, > I find your arguments too complicated for me. All that I want to say is that the shloka Gurur Brahma GururvishnuH etc., which says that the Guru should be looked upon as God is a shloka in the Skanda purana which is not post-colonial. I do not know whether this amounts to prophetizing according to you. > Best wishes, > S.N.Sastri > > advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote: > > > > Namaskarams, Shastriji asked to close the " Essays... " topic and I may be going out of bounds with this. But I thought it is worth using the opportunity to make this point which is also relevant to people here. The following was written a year+ back. It is not perfect perhaps in its analysis but there are some central points that I think are important for Hindus to be aware of. (The topic is not directly related to Advaita philosophy; if not in scope of discussion, the moderators can stop it - my apology.) > > > > > > Prophetizing trend in modern Hinduism > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 praNAmaH Shri Putran-ji, I never saw the MS line 'avataara-varishhTaaya raamakRishhNaaya te namaH' as referring to the paramahaMsaa. A pronoun te is used here. So, I think it refers to a plural word. So, it refers to raama and kRishhNa as the best of all avataaras, which is the accepted thinking too. Though, according to my understanding, even narasiMhaa is a pUrNa avataara and these three are the only pUrNa-avataara-s. Hence the 'te' could refer to these three in a bahuvachana way. Maybe Sanskrit scholars would correct me on this. Namaste again Ramakrishna 2010/4/8 putranm <putranm: > (All this is pushed deliberately by smart people running the show. Is there any reason to hear that Sri Ramakrishna is Avataaravarishta every time you click on the cassette of MS singing Vishnusahasranamam or Bhajagovindam?) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Namaste. " te " means " to you " which is chaturthi vibhakti. [te-namaH] BTW, Shri Putranji is correct. It is directed to Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. MS Mami was instructed in this as per RK Mutt Parampara. And hence, she used to remember her guru parampara this way. regs, sriram advaitin , Ramakrishna Upadrasta <uramakrishna wrote: > > praNAmaH Shri Putran-ji, > > I never saw the MS line 'avataara-varishhTaaya raamakRishhNaaya te > namaH' as referring to the paramahaMsaa. A pronoun te is used here. > So, I think it refers to a plural word. So, it refers to raama and > kRishhNa as the best of all avataaras, which is the accepted thinking > too. Though, according to my understanding, even narasiMhaa is a pUrNa > avataara and these three are the only pUrNa-avataara-s. Hence the > 'te' could refer to these three in a bahuvachana way. > > Maybe Sanskrit scholars would correct me on this. > Namaste again > Ramakrishna > > > 2010/4/8 putranm <putranm: > > > (All this is pushed deliberately by smart people running the show. Is there any reason to hear that Sri Ramakrishna is Avataaravarishta every time you click on the cassette of MS singing Vishnusahasranamam or Bhajagovindam?) > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Namaskaram Ramakrishnaji, My source (which may be faulty) is that MS made the casette as requested by the RK Math (and under their copyright) and in particular Swami Ranganathananda. The sloka we are referring to here was composed by Swami Vivekananda spontaneously during a gathering where a small " centre " was being set up on behalf of the Master. My memory fails me a bit, but I believe Swamiji carried the Sri Ramakrishna's ashes on his head to the new site, and during the ceremony composed extempore. The reference to Ramakrishna is the Master alone and that is the context in which the RK Math generally takes it. Of course, as you indicate, it is possible that one not familiar with the source of the verse may think that its presence before Vishnusahasranaama implies that the reference is to Rama and Krishna. But that will be a novel ( " in your advaitic sense " ) interpretation for anyone who knows the history. As for the sanskrit, I recall " Thubhyam, the " as for singular - it might be that one. I am pretty sure it is not meant to be dual (and referring to Rama and Krishna instead of Ramakrishna) in this verse. thollmelukaalkizhu advaitin , Ramakrishna Upadrasta <uramakrishna wrote: > > praNAmaH Shri Putran-ji, > > I never saw the MS line 'avataara-varishhTaaya raamakRishhNaaya te > namaH' as referring to the paramahaMsaa. A pronoun te is used here. > So, I think it refers to a plural word. So, it refers to raama and > kRishhNa as the best of all avataaras, which is the accepted thinking > too. Though, according to my understanding, even narasiMhaa is a pUrNa > avataara and these three are the only pUrNa-avataara-s. Hence the > 'te' could refer to these three in a bahuvachana way. > > Maybe Sanskrit scholars would correct me on this. > Namaste again > Ramakrishna > > > 2010/4/8 putranm <putranm: > > > (All this is pushed deliberately by smart people running the show. Is there any reason to hear that Sri Ramakrishna is Avataaravarishta every time you click on the cassette of MS singing Vishnusahasranamam or Bhajagovindam?) > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Also " Ramakrishnaaya = to Ramakrishna " is singular as well. advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote: > > Namaskaram Ramakrishnaji, > > My source (which may be faulty) is that MS made the casette as requested by the RK Math (and under their copyright) and in particular Swami Ranganathananda. > > The sloka we are referring to here was composed by Swami Vivekananda spontaneously during a gathering where a small " centre " was being set up on behalf of the Master. My memory fails me a bit, but I believe Swamiji carried the Sri Ramakrishna's ashes on his head to the new site, and during the ceremony composed extempore. The reference to Ramakrishna is the Master alone and that is the context in which the RK Math generally takes it. > > Of course, as you indicate, it is possible that one not familiar with the source of the verse may think that its presence before Vishnusahasranaama implies that the reference is to Rama and Krishna. But that will be a novel ( " in your advaitic sense " ) interpretation for anyone who knows the history. > > As for the sanskrit, I recall " Thubhyam, the " as for singular - it might be that one. I am pretty sure it is not meant to be dual (and referring to Rama and Krishna instead of Ramakrishna) in this verse. > > thollmelukaalkizhu > > > > > > advaitin , Ramakrishna Upadrasta <uramakrishna@> wrote: > > > > praNAmaH Shri Putran-ji, > > > > I never saw the MS line 'avataara-varishhTaaya raamakRishhNaaya te > > namaH' as referring to the paramahaMsaa. A pronoun te is used here. > > So, I think it refers to a plural word. So, it refers to raama and > > kRishhNa as the best of all avataaras, which is the accepted thinking > > too. Though, according to my understanding, even narasiMhaa is a pUrNa > > avataara and these three are the only pUrNa-avataara-s. Hence the > > 'te' could refer to these three in a bahuvachana way. > > > > Maybe Sanskrit scholars would correct me on this. > > Namaste again > > Ramakrishna > > > > > > 2010/4/8 putranm <putranm@>: > > > > > (All this is pushed deliberately by smart people running the show. Is there any reason to hear that Sri Ramakrishna is Avataaravarishta every time you click on the cassette of MS singing Vishnusahasranamam or Bhajagovindam?) > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Pranams. The purpose of this egroup and indeed the benefit of this esatsang is to allow us to dwell on the topic of advaita vedanta as taught by Adi Shankara. To this end the contributions of the Ramakrishna Math is invaluable - numerous monks of that insititution have enabled the easy availability of many works of Shankaracharya in English with very authentic and well-accepted commentaries and translations. There are thousands of seekers, all over the world, whose initation into Vedantic shravana may perhaps have been triggered and inspired as a result of exposure to the works of Swami Vivekananda. How an institution chooses to present itself in the public domain is best left to the members/leadership of that institution - perhaps appreciating their good work may be better for our own spiritual growth than finding fault with our perceptions of their driving ideology. In any case since this thread bears no relevance to the study or understanding of advaita vedanta the request is made that it be closed and no discussions related to its contents ensue. advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote: > > Namaskarams, Shastriji asked to close the " Essays... " topic and I may be going out of bounds with this. But I thought it is worth using the opportunity to make this point which is also relevant to people here. The following was written a year+ back. It is not perfect perhaps in its analysis but there are some central points that I think are important for Hindus to be aware of. (The topic is not directly related to Advaita philosophy; if not in scope of discussion, the moderators can stop it - my apology.) > > > Prophetizing trend in modern Hinduism > > I would like to raise a controversial topic in our religion. No, not the caste system, rather it is the modern trend to incarnation/prophet-making by the disciples of great saints. What about Rama, Krishna? Well, is there proof that an organized attempt to propagate their names followed from their time onward? How about we consider instead Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad – the real trend setters of prophet-centric religions? The difference may be fancied as subtle, but it is a big one if we care for the ways of pre-colonial Hinduism. > > > The concept of incarnation, specifically Lord Vishnu taking birth on Earth to establish Dharma, is accepted by Smartas and Vaisnavas on scriptural basis; see Bhagavad Gita 4.5-9. From the puranas/ithihasas, we learn of particular incarnations like Rama and Krishna. However Hinduism has (in general) no tradition of massive organizations of disciples seeking to promote their human-gurus as incarnations of God. In recent times, this concept whose roots are in Puranic lore has become liberated. Buddha, Jesus, Sri Ramakrishna and many of our times are all incarnations of God to the liberal minded Hindu, with the usage of " God " ensuring that the incarnation is not personality-subordinate to a Hindu deity. The basis of determination is no longer the scripture but rather a subjective conclusion that such great men (say) were `perfect from birth' and that their influence on humanity verifies their status. > > > Now if we properly discern, we will find that the incarnation-making tradition in post-colonial Hinduism is parallel to the prophet-centric religions. A prophet-centric religion revolves around a great saint. The message of the saint may be universally applicable, but the organization that preaches on his behalf deliberately propagates his name, not merely as a representative of an eternal message but almost as its owner/originator. Moreover, the pathetic thrust is to make universal the devotional-context of the organization, obviously directed towards or through its prophet. That is, the organization, due to inherent insecurity and greed for foreign markets, is in the business of proselytizing; in abrahamic cults, this is blatant, in modern Hinduism, more subtle but none-the-less the same. > > > The Ramakrishna Math and organizations today of Hindu gurus who stand independent of established sampradaya have all derived inspiration from the prophet models of non-Hindu faiths. The influence is evident in the manner of expression: literary propaganda that stresses the guru's specialty, constructions of guru-deifying temples that seem alienated from Hinduism, and most critically, directing the devotional context of the organization solely to or through the guru. This effectively allows the organization to stand independent of Hindu culture, except in a superficial sense that is equally applicable to associating with non-Hindu faiths. The service of the poor and the garnering of human resources for this purpose may also find easier execution through the prophet-model; these may be the underlying nobler intentions. However I feel these must be incorporated without promoting our gurus as incarnations of God – this is a trap which our religion has historically avoided. > > > Now let us consider guru-worship within our religion more carefully. At the philosophical level, every Smarta will say " Adi Shankara says this, says that… " and every Sri Vaishnava will say " Sri Ramanuja says this, says that… " Are they not prophetized? Well, admittedly the establishment of Guru-centralized sampradayas came at a later stage in our religion, but thankfully the gurus themselves made it clear that they represented only the scripture/Vedic tradition and not themselves. And this is exactly how every Smarta and Vaishnava sees their adi-guru. The disciple is of course free to worship the guru as one with, or even incarnation of a deity, but the devotional context that the sampradaya speaks for is directed to Ishvara – and very importantly, seen as Shiva, Vishnu, etc., and not as the guru (no `only savior', `last prophet' either). That a sampradaya's devotional objective stands independent of its human-guru is a defining feature of traditional Hinduism. > > > In this regard, a quote of Sri Ramakrishna is worth referring to. He said to a devotee who referred to the saint as God: " I look on myself as a devotee of Krishna, not as Krishna Himself. You may think as you like. You may look on your guru as God. " The same Sri Ramakrishna also gave more eclectic interpretations for the word " incarnation " ; definitely they have their place, but in our world unfortunately any room to over-interpret can be a disaster. It is the responsibility of modern Hindu organizations to stop pandering to and utilizing the ways of Abrahamic religions. Propagate your gurus as great saints who exemplified the Sanatana Dharma; build them temples if you must, but know that a " Universal temple of [My Guru who is your God] " is neither universal nor Hinduism: it is " radical " hypocrisy and ultimately hurting us all. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 advaitin , advaitin-owner wrote: > In any case since this thread bears no relevance to the study or understanding of advaita vedanta the request is made that it be closed and no discussions related to its contents ensue. > Time for a break. It seems I am only good at picking fights in this forum !! I am going to do some " tapas " and my only two non-scriptural book-sources will be the Gospel of SRK and Deivatthin Kural. Will see if Ishvara shows some light. > > advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote: > > > > Namaskarams, Shastriji asked to close the " Essays... " topic and I may be going out of bounds with this. But I thought it is worth using the opportunity to make this point which is also relevant to people here. The following was written a year+ back. It is not perfect perhaps in its analysis but there are some central points that I think are important for Hindus to be aware of. (The topic is not directly related to Advaita philosophy; if not in scope of discussion, the moderators can stop it - my apology.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Thanks Putranji. But please, with my all due respect, you should know that your writing with out a deep perspective pained me a lot. I wish only good with your tapas with two of the best book which I know.Siva Siva Muthuswamy,Post Doctoral ResearchBurke-Cornell Medical Research Institute785 Mamaroneck AveWhite Plains, NY 10605Be the change you want to see in the world - M.K.Gandhiputranm <putranmadvaitin Sent: Thu, April 8, 2010 10:26:30 AM Re: Prophetiszing trends in modern Hindusim advaitin@ s.com, advaitin-owner wrote: > In any case since this thread bears no relevance to the study or understanding of advaita vedanta the request is made that it be closed and no discussions related to its contents ensue. > Time for a break. It seems I am only good at picking fights in this forum !! I am going to do some "tapas" and my only two non-scriptural book-sources will be the Gospel of SRK and Deivatthin Kural. Will see if Ishvara shows some light. > > advaitin@ s.com, "putranm" <putranm@> wrote: > > > > Namaskarams, Shastriji asked to close the "Essays..." topic and I may be going out of bounds with this. But I thought it is worth using the opportunity to make this point which is also relevant to people here. The following was written a year+ back. It is not perfect perhaps in its analysis but there are some central points that I think are important for Hindus to be aware of. (The topic is not directly related to Advaita philosophy; if not in scope of discussion, the moderators can stop it - my apology.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Namaskaram, Thanks for that empty, childish but effective undercut. As the moderators have dismissed the topic, you don't have a chance to give any perspective, nor I to show you why mine is hardly not deep but to the point and as it should be told, at this stage. How we colour the perspectives to justify our meddling of truth is for Ishvara to judge. He is there, within, watching our hearts. Let Him judge me. But the same for you and the RK mission. As for the members here, they are always free to look at those 3 articles in Prabuddha Bharatha and at least comment directly on what is mentioned regarding Advaita as per Shankara. None came forth for that either. Too bad. Anyway I won't be participating. Thanks. thollmelukaalkizhu advaitin , sivaramakrishnan muthuswamy <muthushiv wrote: > > Thanks Putranji. But please, with my all due respect, you should know that your writing with out a deep perspective pained me a lot. I wish only good with your tapas with two of the best book which I know. > Siva > Siva Muthuswamy, > Post Doctoral Research > Burke-Cornell Medical Research Institute > 785 Mamaroneck Ave > White Plains, NY 10605 > > > Be the change you want to see in the world - M.K.Gandhi > > > > > ________________________________ > putranm <putranm > advaitin > Thu, April 8, 2010 10:26:30 AM > Re: Prophetiszing trends in modern Hindusim > > > > advaitin@ s.com, advaitin-owner wrote: > > In any case since this thread bears no relevance to the study or understanding of advaita vedanta the request is made that it be closed and no discussions related to its contents ensue. > > > > Time for a break. It seems I am only good at picking fights in this forum !! I am going to do some " tapas " and my only two non-scriptural book-sources will be the Gospel of SRK and Deivatthin Kural. Will see if Ishvara shows some light. > > > > > advaitin@ s.com, " putranm " <putranm@> wrote: > > > > > > Namaskarams, Shastriji asked to close the " Essays... " topic and I may be going out of bounds with this. But I thought it is worth using the opportunity to make this point which is also relevant to people here. The following was written a year+ back. It is not perfect perhaps in its analysis but there are some central points that I think are important for Hindus to be aware of. (The topic is not directly related to Advaita philosophy; if not in scope of discussion, the moderators can stop it - my apology.) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2010 Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 Putranmji - PraNAms Here is my understanding. 1. Right teacher is the one directs his disciple to the scriptures as pramANa and not to himself. 2. Ultimately it is not what Shankara said or Ramanuja said or Ramakrishna said or what Ramana maharshi said - but what the scripture said. 3. Having said that, the scriptures are difficult to understand coherently or to see the consistency. Hence we need aachaaryas interpretations to guide us in understanding the scriptures. 4. Faith in the interpretation of the aachaaryas is important to appreciate the deeper significance of the scriptures. 5. Ultimately it is gain the disciple has to synthesize and come up to his own understanding correctly and in self consistent manner. 6. If the disciple can come up with his own understanding which even be contradictory to his teacher, it does not matter. What is needed in understanding of the scriptures in self consistent manner to arrive at the truth as expounded in the Scriptures. 7. Finally it is the scriptures alone are pramANa and not individuals. Advaita s to that - is my understanding. 8. From my perspective advaita and objective science are complimentary and not contradictory as long as we understand clearly their fields of application. 8. The rest to me subjective and I do not give much importance to them. Hari Om! Sadananda ------------- Secondly, Shankara represents the Vedas and not himself. The fundamental credit is always and very clearly transferred to the Scriptures. Do we wish to see it otherwise and suggest that Advaita is Shankara's own creation? That is sacrilege and every advaitin here knows it. I appreciated Dasgupta's remarks in that article for the sole reason that he saw Sri Ramakrishna as a manifestation of what is already within the heart of the Sanatana Dharma - the credit is entirely transferred, and justly so. When the organization seeks to prevent this transfer-process and hold it for its founder, there is prophetization. thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2010 Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 Namaste Sadaji, I appreciate your points and are really in tune with the principles of Sanatana Dharma. At the same time, i also cannot help Shri Putranji for his good observations about " prophetising " the sanatana dharma. Well, if we go by this concept called " prophetizing " , as Shri Putranji has observed, this is a recent phenomenon. We don't find any temples dedicated to our rishis like Vishwamitra, Gautama, Dirghatamas, Vamadeva etc. who were the VEDIC SEERS. What Shri Putranji was trying to say is that when our good old intelligent ancestors gave importance to the mantra darshana of these vedic seers and also had reverence to this seers. But the recent trend (post-christ ????) or blah..... witnesses the temples of saints etc. etc. As an example, when mantra initiation is given in Ramakrishna Mutt, the mula mantra given by swamijis of that order is " RAMAKRISHNA PARAMAHAMSA MANTRA " which is something against the mantra sastra. Who is the Mantra Drashta for these, what is the rishi, chandas, anga nyasa / kara nyasa etc. Mantras are not coined just like that as per one's own whims & fancies. They have Ramakrishna Sahasranama, Ashtottara, etc. So, going by the similar lines, we have Ramana Maharishi Mula Mantra, Sahasranama, Ashtottara Nama etc., Ramana Maharishi Puja Vidhana. Even in Amnaya Sankara Mutts, we have Adi Sankara Sahasranama, Ashottara Nama, Puja Vidhana etc. which is performed during Sankara Jayanti Celebrations. We have Sankaracharya Paduka Puja at Sringeri. The price for the Guru Paduka Puja is Rs. 5000/-. So, when " prophetising " has " crept " in Amnaya Pithas, what to speak of other institutions. The sorry state of affairs is that in the state of Andhra Pradesh, no body knows the importance of Guru Pournami (which is called Vyasa ournami). No body rememebrs Bhagavan Badarayana here. They know only Saibaba who is worshipped on Guru Pournami (Vyasa Pournami). This is what is the observation of Shri Putranji. Sanatana Dharma is against this trend. regs, sriram advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > Putranmji - PraNAms > > Here is my understanding. > > 1. Right teacher is the one directs his disciple to the scriptures as pramANa and not to himself. > > 2. Ultimately it is not what Shankara said or Ramanuja said or Ramakrishna said or what Ramana maharshi said - but what the scripture said. > > 3. Having said that, the scriptures are difficult to understand coherently or to see the consistency. Hence we need aachaaryas interpretations to guide us in understanding the scriptures. > > 4. Faith in the interpretation of the aachaaryas is important to appreciate the deeper significance of the scriptures. > > 5. Ultimately it is gain the disciple has to synthesize and come up to his own understanding correctly and in self consistent manner. > > 6. If the disciple can come up with his own understanding which even be contradictory to his teacher, it does not matter. What is needed in understanding of the scriptures in self consistent manner to arrive at the truth as expounded in the Scriptures. > > 7. Finally it is the scriptures alone are pramANa and not individuals. Advaita s to that - is my understanding. > > 8. From my perspective advaita and objective science are complimentary and not contradictory as long as we understand clearly their fields of application. > > 8. The rest to me subjective and I do not give much importance to them. > > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > > ------------- > Secondly, Shankara represents the Vedas and not himself. The fundamental credit is always and very clearly transferred to the Scriptures. Do we wish to see it otherwise and suggest that Advaita is Shankara's own creation? That is sacrilege and every advaitin here knows it. I appreciated Dasgupta's remarks in that article for the sole reason that he saw Sri Ramakrishna as a manifestation of what is already within the heart of the Sanatana Dharma - the credit is entirely transferred, and justly so. When the organization seeks to prevent this transfer-process and hold it for its founder, there is prophetization. > > thollmelukaalkizhu > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2010 Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 (tapas postponed for moderator has reincarnated the thread :-) advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > 6. If the disciple can come up with his own understanding which even be contradictory to his teacher, it does not matter. What is needed in understanding of the scriptures in self consistent manner to arrive at the truth as expounded in the Scriptures. > Sadaji, thanks for your points. The above seems most subtle and important to clarify. Sri Ramanuja and Madhvacharya came up with understandings contradictory to their teachers. How exactly do we (meaning advaitins following Shankara's interpretation, etc) view their understanding of the scriptures? Is Visishtadvaita ultimately correct ( " the truth " ) but only seen from a relative standpoint? Similarly with dvaita. Or is there really only one standpoint (or going beyond them) that is finally to be validated? Is " moksha " or " mukti " possible if the final realization is visishtadvaita? Or are we talking here about the initial understanding of a mumukshu, using which he/she proceeds forward with faith? Thus proceeding sincerely, they will reach the truth even if it be beyond their present convictions? It is an interesting question since we also accept dualistic-bhakthi but say that jnana lies beyond. A Sri Vaishnavite told me that after we realize the atma, we have to realize God. I read in an Iskcon book of how our understanding of Brahman is of the impersonal glow beyond which is the Supreme Person. So in our traditions, we all seem to accomodate (in one way or another) other paths or philosophies as partially valid. What really is our general viewpoint on this matter? Next, can you tell the place of experience in advaita? I am going to quote from Jeffrey Long's article. It deserves a proper and careful response at least among ourselves to clarify Advaita's stance on this issue. " The chief distinction between modern Vedanta and more traditional forms, such as Advaita, Visishtadvaita, and Dvaita, is the emphasis that modern Vedanta places on the anubhava, direct experience, of the aspirant as the final source of spiritual authority. In modern Vedanta, the Vedic texts are conceived as a record of the experiences of enlightened sages, rishis, and the authority of these texts to have a provisional nature, acting as a guide to the nature of the ultimate Reality. Because the experience of ultimate Reality is universal, and not confined to one particular culture, Swami Vivekananda writes: 'All scriptures, all truths are Vedas in all times, in all countries; because these truths are to be seen, and any one may discover them.' The guidance of scripture is no longer needed after one experiences nirvikalpa samadhi, absorption in ultimate Reality, for as the Bhagavadgita says: 'As useful as a water tank in a flood, is the Veda for one who has insight.' This absorption is achieved through the practice of one or more of the four yogas: karma, jnana, bhakti, and raja. As Anantanand Rambachan has pointed out in #Accomplishing the Accomplished and The Limits of Scripture#, this is quite distinct from the traditional view that the Vedas are an independent and sufficient pramana, basis, for the jnana, knowledge, that leads to - and indeed constitutes - liberation, at least according to an Advaitic understanding of moksha. One might ssay that, for modern Vedanta, experience confirms the truth of the Vedas, whereas for traditional forms of Vedanta, the Vedas confirm the truth of experience. " [The following paragraph is also worth reading, but it deals with my earlier question] thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2010 Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 advaitin , " Venkata Sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: >> But the recent trend (post-christ ????) or blah..... witnesses the temples of saints etc. etc. As an example, when mantra initiation is given in Ramakrishna Mutt, the mula mantra given by swamijis of that order is " RAMAKRISHNA PARAMAHAMSA MANTRA " which is something against the mantra sastra. Who is the Mantra Drashta for these, what is the rishi, chandas, anga nyasa / kara nyasa etc. Mantras are not coined just like that as per one's own whims & fancies. They have Ramakrishna Sahasranama, Ashtottara, etc. > > Namaskaram Sriramji, on this point here, Sri Ramakrishna initiated Swami Vivekananda with the Rama mantra. I am told that his disciple Swami Brahmananda initiated disciples with Krishna mantra (and Krishna may well have been his Ishta-devata, which is strongly suggested by his biography). Those were early days. thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2010 Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 advaitin , " Venkata Sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > Namaste Sadaji, > > I appreciate your points and are really in tune with the principles of Sanatana Dharma. At the same time, i also cannot help Shri Putranji for his good observations about " prophetising " the sanatana dharma. > > Well, if we go by this concept called " prophetizing " , as Shri Putranji has observed, this is a recent phenomenon. We don't find any temples dedicated to our rishis like Vishwamitra, Gautama, Dirghatamas, Vamadeva etc. who were the VEDIC SEERS. What Shri Putranji was trying to say is that when our good old intelligent ancestors gave importance to the mantra darshana of these vedic seers and also had reverence to this seers. > > > So, going by the similar lines, we have Ramana Maharishi Mula Mantra, Sahasranama, Ashtottara Nama etc., Ramana Maharishi Puja Vidhana. Even in Amnaya Sankara Mutts, we have Adi Sankara Sahasranama, Ashottara Nama, Puja Vidhana etc. which is performed during Sankara Jayanti Celebrations. We have Sankaracharya Paduka Puja at Sringeri. The price for the Guru Paduka Puja is Rs. 5000/-. > So, when " prophetising " has " crept " in Amnaya Pithas, what to speak of other institutions. > > regs, > sriram Namaste to all. After Ramji has asked for this subject to be closed I should not normally send this post, but there are some statements in the latest message of Venkata Sriram which will mislead members unless replied to and so I am compelled to write this. He speaks of puja of Shankara Bhagavatapada in the Sringeri Mutt with ashTottaram, etc.,as `prophetizing'. This is a total misunderstanding. When H.H. Bharati Tirtha Swamigal of Sringeri was in Chennai a few years ago, in one of his talks (anugraha bhAShaNams) he posed the question, " Why do we worship Bhagavatpada as if he is God while he was only a human being? " . Then in answer he referred to MuNDaka up.III.i.10-- tasmAd Atmajnam hyarcayet bhUtikAmaH. The meaning of this is – Therefore, one desirous of prosperity should adore the knower of the Self. Shri Shankara explains in his bhAShya on this line—one should worship, through washing of feet, service, salutation, etc., the knower of the Self. Thus worship of realized persons is sanctioned by shruti itself as explained by His Holiness himself. Without knowing all this, for some one to declare that it is all prophetizing is the height of rashness. I suppose, as an ardent devotee of the Sringeri Mutt, Sriram-ji is aware that an aShTottaram of H.H. Abhinava Vidyatirtha Swamigal was composed by none other than H.H. Bharati Tirtha Swamigal. I suppose it is not implied that he was also impelled by the urge to prophetize. Disciples of Ramakrishna consider him to be a realized soul. How is their worshipping him with aShTottaram etc., different from our worship of Shankara? In Shankara Gurukulam in Chennai where I studied the Bhashyas there is puja of Shankara every day. So let us not try to find fault with others. That does not help our advaita sAdhana but only obstructs it. Let this discussion be closed and let us devote our time to what will help us towards our goal. Best wishes, S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2010 Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > Disciples of Ramakrishna consider him to be a realized soul. How is their worshipping him with aShTottaram etc., different from our worship of Shankara? In Shankara Gurukulam in Chennai where I studied the Bhashyas there is puja of Shankara every day. Shastriji, I had already made some points in earlier posts and the beginning essay, relevant to this. These parallels must be analyzed more carefully than how you are suggesting. That is how I feel. Anyway, please see my recent post to Sadaji where I raised other points including quoting Jeffrey Long. Your comments if any will be valuable. Thanks. thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2010 Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 Namaste,Are we overtly worrying on issues which are not real issues. One thing we need to remember is that 'edification' is a part of any movement - either to a 'sampradaya', a 'guru', a 'master', an 'idea', a 'revelation'....If RK Mission venerates 'paramahamsa' s' statue / idol and sing his praise, it doesn't in any way reduce the value of Vedanta or Advaita. Organisations will have its own set of rules and regulations which they keep it to themselves. That' how an organisation exists. Isn't it the case with even the basic unit - 'family'. If the children adores and glorify their parents it doesn't devalue the person's spiritual wisdom. More over it is natures' own way of maintaining the 'dharma' forever - 'sanaatana'. How does one survive all times unless it is ready to adapt to the changing times. 'Change' is the only way one can get over the 'rigidity' which looks good temporarily but gets destroyed over time. I think the 'missionary' way of functioning is a fall out of the Christian missionaries who were gnawing into the internals of this country's ethos by spreading fiercely among the masses. So it was a call of the day. Most of these organisations have done more to Vedanta and Advaita than most others. Their commitment and contributions stand out at all times.Though all that they do may not be exactly right and perfect; for that matter who is! Even Shree Sankara was externed ( or reprimanded?) by 'Namboothiris' for performing ' Antyeshti' of his mother. Remember he was a Sanyasin who found no inconsistency in easing his widowed mother's last moments of life. RegardsBalagopalps :'sanaatana' has these meanings: forever, eternity, ancient, unending, everlasting .. check them at:http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK & tinput=sanaatana & country_ID= & trans=Translate & direction=AU Send free SMS to your Friends on Mobile from your Messenger. Download Now! http://messenger./download.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2010 Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 --- On Fri, 4/9/10, putranm <putranm wrote: > 6. If the disciple can come up with his own understanding which even be contradictory to his teacher, it does not matter. What is needed in understanding of the scriptures in self consistent manner to arrive at the truth as expounded in the Scriptures. > Sadaji, thanks for your points. The above seems most subtle and important to clarify. Sri Ramanuja and Madhvacharya came up with understandings contradictory to their teachers. How exactly do we (meaning advaitins following Shankara's interpretation, etc) view their understanding of the scriptures? Putranmji - PraNams It is immaterial to me what Ramanuja or Madhva did - the question if after they left their teacher and proposed their interpretations, is those better than original advaita doctrine. Yes. Implication is one can misinterpret and follow different philosophies but that is OK for them. The truth is one and will not depend on others accepting or rejecting it. Hence, even if they took a wrong turn, an intelligent person will ultimately have to come around to the truth if not in this life, in the life after. This is true for Ramanuja, Madhva or Ramana maharshi. Their lives is not the question - is the truth expounded by this is acceptable or not on the basis of scriptures. If everybody says what they say is correct and these statements are contradictory to others, a student has to use his own intellect to arrive at the correct conclusion. This is true in science and this is true in Vedanta. One has to question until one arrives at the truth to his conviction. That is one of the reason whey when I write; I insist that this is my understanding based on the scriptures - or an understanding that appeals to my rational intellect. At this same time, because of the same background, I am the first person to reject my previous understanding if someone finds faults with it. Scholars like Sastriji have corrected me many times in the past. ------------- Putranm: Is Visishtadvaita ultimately correct ( " the truth " ) but only seen from a relative standpoint? Similarly with dvaita. Or is there really only one standpoint (or going beyond them) that is finally to be validated? Is " moksha " or " mukti " possible if the final realization is visishtadvaita? KS: Putranmji - whom are you asking for answers - a vishiShTaadvaitin or advaitin? - Ultimately the answer depends on whom you ask. But is that important? I would like to know what is the truth not based on what Shankara said or Ramanuja said. The truth does not depend on individuals, right. Hence go back to Shastra and see how each of them interpret and see what really makes sense to the individual investigator. This is like any other scientific pursuit. Ultimately the message is - keep the intellect sharp and do not accept anything or everything just because some aacharya said or interpreted this way - See the self-consistency and see the ultimate reality from the point of scriptures and decide. My perspective series is only out growth of my own mental evolution of what I think is the truth and only take those interpretations that are self consistent and pointing to the reality expounded by mahavaakyaas of Vedanta. Another person may not give important to these mahaavaakya as Ramanuja did since he has decided in his mind that Ultimate truth is one pervading many as the absolute truth where many are dependent and one is independent - with master-servant relation ship. He as a typical bhakta is happy with that truth. People like me cannot accept as the slavery as the ultimate freedom. ----------- Or are we talking here about the initial understanding of a mumukshu, using which he/she precedes forward with faith? Thus proceeding sincerely, they will reach the truth even if it be beyond their present convictions? It is an interesting question since we also accept dualistic-bhakthi but say that jnana lies beyond. A Sri Vaishnavite told me that after we realize the atma, we have to realize God. I read in an Iskcon book of how our understanding of Brahman is of the impersonal glow beyond which is the Supreme Person. So in our traditions, we all seem to accomodate (in one way or another) other paths or philosophies as partially valid. What really is our general viewpoint on this matter? ------- Putranmji - why are you interested in others following certain paths? Bhakti is valid until bhakta himself dissolves with saayujyam. If that appeals to you follow other wise follow the advaita or even developed your own philosophy - the important point is keep the intellect sharp - in the blind belief whether it is vishiShTaadvaita, dvaita or even advaita, the intellect becomes dull and looses the capacity to inquire about the truth. Advaita does not want you believe any thing and if you can reject advaita as irrational do it by all means. The ball is in your court. As Shree T.P Mahadevan once said - advaita or non-dualism the non includes not only to dvaita but to ism as well. ----------- Putranm: Next, can you tell the place of experience in advaita? I am going to quote from Jeffrey Long's article. It deserves a proper and careful response at least among ourselves to clarify Advaita's stance on this issue. KS: Putranmji I have discussed this elaborately in my series. Everyone has advaita experience everyday as they go to deep sleep state. What is the place of deep sleep state? It is not lack of experience but lack of understanding or lack of knowledge of that experience or what that experience really means. Longing for advaita experience is one of the hurdles for the knowledge since mind is not available to see clearly what is there all the time. I want to experience myself - if somebody says - does it not sound ridiculous? When is the time I am not there? It is like sitting under the sun and asking I want to experience sunlight. All I have to do is open my eyes and see what is there all the time. --------------- Putranmji: " The chief distinction between modern Vedanta and more traditional forms, such as Advaita, Visishtadvaita, and Dvaita, is the emphasis that modern Vedanta places on the anubhava, direct experience, of the aspirant as the final source of spiritual authority. KS - I am not sure what is modern Vedanta vs Traditional Vedanta? Vedanta is Vedanta - it is time-immemorial - truth is not based on time. One can present the truth using modern language or rational approach as I tried to myself. But the truth itself is beyond time. Misinterpretations are there all the time both at that time and now. But one has to be with sharp intellect not to fall on the traps. Hari Om! sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2010 Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 Sadaji,What you say resonates with Ekam Sat, Viprah Bhahudha Vadanti. Is it that we miss this ?DilipOn Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:30 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: --- On Fri, 4/9/10, putranm <putranm wrote: > 6. If the disciple can come up with his own understanding which even be contradictory to his teacher, it does not matter. What is needed in understanding of the scriptures in self consistent manner to arrive at the truth as expounded in the Scriptures. > Sadaji, thanks for your points. The above seems most subtle and important to clarify. Sri Ramanuja and Madhvacharya came up with understandings contradictory to their teachers. How exactly do we (meaning advaitins following Shankara's interpretation, etc) view their understanding of the scriptures? Putranmji - PraNams It is immaterial to me what Ramanuja or Madhva did - the question if after they left their teacher and proposed their interpretations, is those better than original advaita doctrine. Yes. Implication is one can misinterpret and follow different philosophies but that is OK for them. The truth is one and will not depend on others accepting or rejecting it. Hence, even if they took a wrong turn, an intelligent person will ultimately have to come around to the truth if not in this life, in the life after. This is true for Ramanuja, Madhva or Ramana maharshi. Their lives is not the question - is the truth expounded by this is acceptable or not on the basis of scriptures. If everybody says what they say is correct and these statements are contradictory to others, a student has to use his own intellect to arrive at the correct conclusion. This is true in science and this is true in Vedanta. One has to question until one arrives at the truth to his conviction. That is one of the reason whey when I write; I insist that this is my understanding based on the scriptures - or an understanding that appeals to my rational intellect. At this same time, because of the same background, I am the first person to reject my previous understanding if someone finds faults with it. Scholars like Sastriji have corrected me many times in the past. ------------- Putranm: Is Visishtadvaita ultimately correct ( " the truth " ) but only seen from a relative standpoint? Similarly with dvaita. Or is there really only one standpoint (or going beyond them) that is finally to be validated? Is " moksha " or " mukti " possible if the final realization is visishtadvaita? KS: Putranmji - whom are you asking for answers - a vishiShTaadvaitin or advaitin? - Ultimately the answer depends on whom you ask. But is that important? I would like to know what is the truth not based on what Shankara said or Ramanuja said. The truth does not depend on individuals, right. Hence go back to Shastra and see how each of them interpret and see what really makes sense to the individual investigator. This is like any other scientific pursuit. Ultimately the message is - keep the intellect sharp and do not accept anything or everything just because some aacharya said or interpreted this way - See the self-consistency and see the ultimate reality from the point of scriptures and decide. My perspective series is only out growth of my own mental evolution of what I think is the truth and only take those interpretations that are self consistent and pointing to the reality expounded by mahavaakyaas of Vedanta. Another person may not give important to these mahaavaakya as Ramanuja did since he has decided in his mind that Ultimate truth is one pervading many as the absolute truth where many are dependent and one is independent - with master-servant relation ship. He as a typical bhakta is happy with that truth. People like me cannot accept as the slavery as the ultimate freedom. ----------- Or are we talking here about the initial understanding of a mumukshu, using which he/she precedes forward with faith? Thus proceeding sincerely, they will reach the truth even if it be beyond their present convictions? It is an interesting question since we also accept dualistic-bhakthi but say that jnana lies beyond. A Sri Vaishnavite told me that after we realize the atma, we have to realize God. I read in an Iskcon book of how our understanding of Brahman is of the impersonal glow beyond which is the Supreme Person. So in our traditions, we all seem to accomodate (in one way or another) other paths or philosophies as partially valid. What really is our general viewpoint on this matter? ------- Putranmji - why are you interested in others following certain paths? Bhakti is valid until bhakta himself dissolves with saayujyam. If that appeals to you follow other wise follow the advaita or even developed your own philosophy - the important point is keep the intellect sharp - in the blind belief whether it is vishiShTaadvaita, dvaita or even advaita, the intellect becomes dull and looses the capacity to inquire about the truth. Advaita does not want you believe any thing and if you can reject advaita as irrational do it by all means. The ball is in your court. As Shree T.P Mahadevan once said - advaita or non-dualism the non includes not only to dvaita but to ism as well. ----------- Putranm: Next, can you tell the place of experience in advaita? I am going to quote from Jeffrey Long's article. It deserves a proper and careful response at least among ourselves to clarify Advaita's stance on this issue. KS: Putranmji I have discussed this elaborately in my series. Everyone has advaita experience everyday as they go to deep sleep state. What is the place of deep sleep state? It is not lack of experience but lack of understanding or lack of knowledge of that experience or what that experience really means. Longing for advaita experience is one of the hurdles for the knowledge since mind is not available to see clearly what is there all the time. I want to experience myself - if somebody says - does it not sound ridiculous? When is the time I am not there? It is like sitting under the sun and asking I want to experience sunlight. All I have to do is open my eyes and see what is there all the time. --------------- Putranmji: " The chief distinction between modern Vedanta and more traditional forms, such as Advaita, Visishtadvaita, and Dvaita, is the emphasis that modern Vedanta places on the anubhava, direct experience, of the aspirant as the final source of spiritual authority. KS - I am not sure what is modern Vedanta vs Traditional Vedanta? Vedanta is Vedanta - it is time-immemorial - truth is not based on time. One can present the truth using modern language or rational approach as I tried to myself. But the truth itself is beyond time. Misinterpretations are there all the time both at that time and now. But one has to be with sharp intellect not to fall on the traps. Hari Om! sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2010 Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 --- On Fri, 4/9/10, Dilip Dhopavkar <dilip.dhopavkar wrote: What you say resonates with Ekam Sat, Viprah Bhahudha Vadanti. Is it that we miss this ? Dilip Dilipji PraNAms Not exactly. Ekam sat is correct. What is that sat is the question. Advaita says it is one without a second without any sajaati, vijaati and swagata bhedaas, while the same sat vishiShTaadvaita says it is without sajaati, vijaati bhedaas alright but it has swagata bhedaas - that is it has internal parts that are different like Body is one but limbs or organs are different - hence what they say is limbs have organic relation with the total body - there is difference between one limb and the other or one cell and the other, etc. Here the statement is illogical since sat which is infinite is being internally differentiated. The justification is the truth is beyond logic on one side and the second is every object in the world has attributes that distinguish the object - so is the sat for them. Advaita stands tall, for me, only because it echoes Vedanta and it is rational too. For a scientific mind that truth is the absolute - not because Shankara said so or bhagavaan Ramana said so. One can describe this indescribable entity in different ways to communicate - that part is what ekam sat - vipraha or the wise people describe different ways (non-contradictory) bahudaa vadanti. Hence contradictory descriptions do not constitute bahudaa vadanti. Self-consistent truth is described or can be pointed in many ways. Hence the statement does not apply in accounting the differences between advaita, dvaita and vishiShTaadvaita. Hope this helps Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2010 Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 PraNAms to all First my apologies. After week of vacation, I just returned and started reading the mails one by one and responding without realizing that Shre Ramji has closed the topic for whatever reason, although the direction of the topic I took is just examining the role of guru in relation to the scriptures which is different from should one worship guru with puja etc. I concur with Shree Sastriji in the sense that when one accepts a guru, for him the guru is the living symbol of God, Iswara. If everything is God, one can invoke God in anything and everything too - as long as one understands the meaning of idol in relation to the ideal. It is not the form that we worship but that teaching or the truth that is being expounded through the mouth of the teacher. There is no problem as long as one does not insist that everybody should worship that guru - then one is giving importance to external form than to the essence of the teaching. I close my discussion on this topic apologizing again for extending the discussion beyond the request to close the discussion. I will not be contributing further discussion on this topic. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Fri, 4/9/10, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2010 Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 Dear Putran-ji, Accepting that RK Mission is building a cult and that they are finding fault with Shankara's interpretation of advaita, why should we bother about it? They are not alone in criticizing Shankara. If you read the Krishna Consciousness commentary on the gita you will see that they use nasty language against Shankara at every step. They say advaita is all nonsense. Of course you can make subtle distinctions between what they say and what RK Mission says. But there will be no end to all this. Shankara's advaita is not going to be affected by what others say. I shall not be sending any more posts on this subject. Regards, S.N.Sastri advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote: > > > > advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri@> wrote: > > > > Disciples of Ramakrishna consider him to be a realized soul. How is their worshipping him with aShTottaram etc., different from our worship of Shankara? In Shankara Gurukulam in Chennai where I studied the Bhashyas there is puja of Shankara every day. > > > Shastriji, I had already made some points in earlier posts and the beginning essay, relevant to this. These parallels must be analyzed more carefully than how you are suggesting. That is how I feel. > > Anyway, please see my recent post to Sadaji where I raised other points including quoting Jeffrey Long. Your comments if any will be valuable. Thanks. > > thollmelukaalkizhu > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2010 Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 Sadaji, I see that you decided to leave the thread. So I will just make a point and leave it there. I am not expecting an answer. You have given some solid advice - questions can be posed but not now. Only one: A point you keep coming to is that our rationality or conclusion on truth must be consistent with the scripture - or we must verify the consistency with the scripture. A valid question here is whether you look to see whether the scripture speaks of truth that your rationality/experience/insight led to. Or whether you start with the scripture and see whether your rationality/experience/insight/conviction also concludes there. It may go somewhere else from where you started but again there also should be validation from scripture. Suppose your rationality/experience/insight leads somewhere totally antagonistic to Upanishads in spite of all their potential for variety in interpretation. I suppose there are schools that think so. What should our conclusion be at this stage? I know you may not answer, so it is just a point I am making - for it deals with Jeffrey Long's point on anubhava validating scripture as opposed to having anubhava validated by reason based on scripture. thollmelukaalkizhu thollmelukaalkizhu advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > Yes. Implication is one can misinterpret and follow different philosophies but that is OK for them. The truth is one and will not depend on others accepting or rejecting it. Hence, even if they took a wrong turn, an intelligent person will ultimately have to come around to the truth if not in this life, in the life after. This is true for Ramanuja, Madhva or Ramana maharshi. Their lives is not the question - is the truth expounded by this is acceptable or not on the basis of scriptures. If everybody says what they say is correct and these statements are contradictory to others, a student has to use his own intellect to arrive at the correct conclusion. This is true in science and this is true in Vedanta. One has to question until one arrives at the truth to his conviction. > > That is one of the reason whey when I write; I insist that this is my understanding based on the scriptures - or an understanding that appeals to my rational intellect. At this same time, because of the same background, I am the first person to reject my previous understanding if someone finds faults with it. Scholars like Sastriji have corrected me many times in the past. > ------------- > KS: Putranmji - whom are you asking for answers - a vishiShTaadvaitin or advaitin? - Ultimately the answer depends on whom you ask. But is that important? I would like to know what is the truth not based on what Shankara said or Ramanuja said. The truth does not depend on individuals, right. Hence go back to Shastra and see how each of them interpret and see what really makes sense to the individual investigator. This is like any other scientific pursuit. Ultimately the message is - keep the intellect sharp and do not accept anything or everything just because some aacharya said or interpreted this way - See the self-consistency and see the ultimate reality from the point of scriptures and decide. > My perspective series is only out growth of my own mental evolution of what I think is the truth and only take those interpretations that are self consistent and pointing to the reality expounded by mahavaakyaas of Vedanta. > Another person may not give important to these mahaavaakya as Ramanuja did since he has decided in his mind that Ultimate truth is one pervading many as the absolute truth where many are dependent and one is independent - with master-servant relation ship. He as a typical bhakta is happy with that truth. People like me cannot accept as the slavery as the ultimate freedom. > ----------- > > > > Or are we talking here about the initial understanding of a mumukshu, using which he/she precedes forward with faith? Thus proceeding sincerely, they will reach the truth even if it be beyond their present convictions? > > It is an interesting question since we also accept dualistic-bhakthi but say that jnana lies beyond. A Sri Vaishnavite told me that after we realize the atma, we have to realize God. I read in an Iskcon book of how our understanding of Brahman is of the impersonal glow beyond which is the Supreme Person. So in our traditions, we all seem to accomodate (in one way or another) other paths or philosophies as partially valid. What really is our general viewpoint on this matter? > > ------- > Putranmji - why are you interested in others following certain paths? Bhakti is valid until bhakta himself dissolves with saayujyam. If that appeals to you follow other wise follow the advaita or even developed your own philosophy - the important point is keep the intellect sharp - in the blind belief whether it is vishiShTaadvaita, dvaita or even advaita, the intellect becomes dull and looses the capacity to inquire about the truth. > Advaita does not want you believe any thing and if you can reject advaita as irrational do it by all means. The ball is in your court. As Shree T.P Mahadevan once said - advaita or non-dualism the non includes not only to dvaita but to ism as well. > > ----------- > Putranm: > Next, can you tell the place of experience in advaita? I am going to quote from Jeffrey Long's article. It deserves a proper and careful response at least among ourselves to clarify Advaita's stance on this issue. > > KS: Putranmji I have discussed this elaborately in my series. Everyone has advaita experience everyday as they go to deep sleep state. What is the place of deep sleep state? It is not lack of experience but lack of understanding or lack of knowledge of that experience or what that experience really means. Longing for advaita experience is one of the hurdles for the knowledge since mind is not available to see clearly what is there all the time. I want to experience myself - if somebody says - does it not sound ridiculous? When is the time I am not there? It is like sitting under the sun and asking I want to experience sunlight. All I have to do is open my eyes and see what is there all the time. > --------------- > Putranmji: > > " The chief distinction between modern Vedanta and more traditional forms, such as Advaita, Visishtadvaita, and Dvaita, is the emphasis that modern Vedanta places on the anubhava, direct experience, of the aspirant as the final source of spiritual authority. > > KS - I am not sure what is modern Vedanta vs Traditional Vedanta? Vedanta is Vedanta - it is time-immemorial - truth is not based on time. > One can present the truth using modern language or rational approach as I tried to myself. But the truth itself is beyond time. Misinterpretations are there all the time both at that time and now. But one has to be with sharp intellect not to fall on the traps. > > > Hari Om! > sadananda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2010 Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 Shastriji, Let me begin with Sadaji's ending comment in recent post: " Only one has to make sure his misinterpretations are not propagated to others. Hence these discussions too. " Organizations can misrepresent the saint and the religion, and anyone connected to the religion has concern over what organizations do in its name. As for advaitins, here we are lauding the RK Math for its translations of Shankara bhashyas and scriptures. It is important to monitor changes in the attitudes in an organization whose monks have done much to spread advaita or vedanta. Those earlier who did translations may not have felt a conflict of " Shankara's advaita vs Sri Ramakrishna's " - the saints' teachings may be felt to be compliment naturally bringing out the essence of both philosophy and our religion. From a personal standpoint, I am a fan of Sri Ramakrishna and feel this cult-development, no matter what its underlying basis or justification, is doing gross misrepresentation of him, what he taught and the dharma he embodied. Truth is paramount test of religion. I also feel that the basic caution regarding prophetization that I mentioned as being evident in our sampradayas is something fundamental to what is our Dharma and why it is sanaatana. thollmelukaalkizhu advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > Dear Putran-ji, > Accepting that RK Mission is building a cult and that they are finding fault with Shankara's interpretation of advaita, why should we bother about it? They are not alone in criticizing Shankara. If you read the Krishna Consciousness commentary on the gita you will see that they use nasty language against Shankara at every step. They say advaita is all nonsense. Of course you can make subtle distinctions between what they say and what RK Mission says. But there will be no end to all this. Shankara's advaita is not going to be affected by what others say. > > I shall not be sending any more posts on this subject. > Regards, > S.N.Sastri > > advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote: > > > > > > > > advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri@> wrote: > > > > > > Disciples of Ramakrishna consider him to be a realized soul. How is their worshipping him with aShTottaram etc., different from our worship of Shankara? In Shankara Gurukulam in Chennai where I studied the Bhashyas there is puja of Shankara every day. > > > > > > Shastriji, I had already made some points in earlier posts and the beginning essay, relevant to this. These parallels must be analyzed more carefully than how you are suggesting. That is how I feel. > > > > Anyway, please see my recent post to Sadaji where I raised other points including quoting Jeffrey Long. Your comments if any will be valuable. Thanks. > > > > thollmelukaalkizhu > > > 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.