talasiga

The ferry of devotion finds Radha waiting at every shore

Maybe he is not so different to us - desiring the spiritual in our crippled state. Perhaps he has something to tell you but first you must control your mind......

how many names can one man drop before he sees the I?

This is not a dialectic It is a reality that cannot be learned All that can be taught Is how little we understand and putting labels on the windscreen will bring us to crash

Methinks you might have missed my point. Maybe I didnt CUT AND PASTE enough

This is weird logic Puru. If a policeman pulls you up and gives you a friendly warning that you were driving a little too fast, you dont say, "Dam fuzz, here you drive my car then!"

Yes, thank you for correcting yourself, my eagle eyes are ever watchful and I was about to swoop on you. There are differences between your translation and the ones that shvu is quoting. The translation I have is also similar to Shvu's (see thread "Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is Krsna Himself). Shvu also gives context of the mantra. It is accepted universal principle in valid scriptural, statutory, canonical (etc) interpretation that one portion of something must be read in the context of the whole. If you dont wish to dialogue with Shvu please try me. I have already been accused of being a believer in Gauranga Mahaprabhu as an Avatara because I consider the Shikshastaka as Shrooti.

This is a translation of Svetasvatara Upanishad 2:12 (Sri Swami Sivananda, "The Principal Upanishads" Divine Life Society, Rishikesh, India):- When the fivefold quality of Yoga arising from earth, water, fire, air and ether has been produced, then the Yogi is endowed with body made strong by the fire of Yoga and so will not be affected by disease, old age and death. Please permit Puru Das Adhikary to explain the reference to Mahaprabhu Gauranga in this verse..... [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-02-2001).]

Come again! Svetasvatara Upanishad 2.12 reference to Mahaprabhu Gauranga? Are you fair dinkum? Please check it out. And let us know your results. Ta.

Talasiga says: No matter how much One hammers the beads and baubles The poor cannot afford diamonds [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-01-2001).]

FOR SATYARAJA You are standing in Tomorrow's Temple Adorned with yesteryear's garlands Caste them off! For they are rank with age Reclaim your innocence and come, empty handed Leaving aside your offerings Your theories on Grace In Tomorrow's Temple You are the fruit, the flower the leaf And don't you know That your Falling Is with the waterfall Diving into the abyss of Love? Talasiga

Yes Leyh, Your story was about people who display knowledge of Shrooti and philosophy whilst lacking in personal experience and understanding. Is there any Paramahansa Yogananda story about those who hide their spiritual experience and understanding? Such a story would also be relevant under the title of this thread, "I am waiting to hear from you."

Satyaraja Dasa continues to expose his misunderstanding by (i) incorrect presumption that Talasiga is "defending a belief that Lord Chaitanya is an avatara". (ii) ironically promoting his (Satyaraja's) BELIEF that "no-one should deal with believers"! (iii) labelling Talasiga as "an Iskconer in disguise". Talasiga considers these issues are a DISTRACTION from the examination of Satyaraja's theology to which Talasiga has made some thoughtful comments. In the spirit of fellowship the latest substantial comments by Talasiga are now reposted to continue constructive discussion, particularly on points 1 and 2 which Satyaraja has not yet touched on: [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 06-29-2001).]

1. Re: Talasiga says that Harinama is already Bhagavaan manifested but the sadhaka's path is to realise it (meaning 1) and also to realise it (meaning 2). a) Satyaraja attempts to dismiss this statement based on his level of understanding of Katha Upanishad I.2.23. Applying this level of understanding mantras 12,13,14,15, & 16 of Katha Upanishad at Chapter 1 valli 3 will be seen to counter Satyaraja's selection. b) Satyaraja also misinterprets this statement to mean sadhana alone causes the state of beatitude but there is nothing in this statement that says this. The Talasiga statement was made, in the line of discussion including precepts about perennial or inherent Grace and specific Grace, a propos and in agreement with Satyaraja's postulation that God's Grace is independent. Therefore, reading it in this context, an appropriate interpretation of the statement may be illustrated as follows: Harinama is invested with the Lord's trancendental energies and therefore is a manifestation of the Lord's perennial Grace. A Devotee who chants the Harinama is on the path to actualise the Lord's Grace which occurs by the specific Grace of the Lord by which the Devotee realises the inherent Grace in the Harinama and/or any other realisation by the Lord's Will. 2. Re: Talasiga saying that from the recipient's position the reception of the Grace is dependent on God. Satyaraja makes no substantial criticism on this, other than to class it as "mere theology" reflecting a "dual position" that is "not absolute". This is all true and does not upset the value of the Talasiga statement: - (i) it is "mere theology" a propos Satyaraja's own mere theology; (ii) it reflects a "dual position" in as much as the concept of God bestowing Grace on a person illustrates a dual position as postulated by Satyaraja himself; (iii) it is "not absolute" because the perspective of the jiva is "not absolute". The plain fact is that the Causeless Mercy of the Lord is perceived by the jiva as Mercy caused by the Lord. Q.E.D. 3. Satyaraja's criticisms of the remainder of Talasiga comments a propos Satyaraja's own theology, are also in the same vein and tend to show that Satyaraja has misunderstood Talasiga. Talasiga had attempted to assist Satyaraja by qualifying Satyaraja's theology in a way that would enable it to comprehend and honour the Shrooti of the Shikshashtaka of Lord Chaitanya. [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 06-28-2001).]

Satyaraja Dasa said, A sect would sey; 'If one follows such and such discipline as instructed by our acaryas for certain he will attain Hari." and, Some religious sects may states that sabdha 'causes' the manifestation of Brahman in someone's heart, but..... Talasiga does not consider what some others say, or do not say, as relevant to an expose' of Satyaraja's understanding if those others are not esteemed, or considered authoritative, by Satyaraja. Talasiga says that it would be more fruitful for Satyaraja to support his expression of his understanding with the sayings of those he esteems, loves or considers authoritative. Talasiga makes this suggestion warmly and in a spirit of fellowship. Satyaraja Dasa also said, ...but no devotional theology is satisfactory to explain why Harinama doesn't manifest Himself immediately as Bhagavan as soon as He is uttered by someone. Talasiga says that Harinama is already Bhagavaan manifested but the sadhaka's path is to realise it (meaning 1) and also to realise it (meaning 2). Talasiga had hoped that his spontaneous comments to Satyaraja's second postulate may have been helpful to reconcile Satyaraja'a paradox. Talasiga had commented that while God's Grace is independent, from the recipient's position the reception of the Grace a) is dependent on God b) is, subject to God's Grace, coloured by the recipient's state of consciousness. c) may be perceived by the recipient as a specific Grace d) may be perceived by the recipient as perennial or inherent Grace not previously recognised by the recipient e) may not be perceived by the recipient at all. [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 06-27-2001).]

`

Thank You for reminding me of this story Leyh. Not many are responding to your post. Perhaps they are applying themselves to the lesson it presents. Kindest Regards Talasiga

TALASIGA RESPONDS TO SHVU'S 25 JUNE 6:06AM POST 1. Shvu said, "Finally, an example, I waited circa 100 hours to get one." There was no need for Shvu to faithfully wait so long for my answer. I am neither his Guru nor his Beloved :>) (Nor do I consider myself a Vedaantin and neither should ISKCON be insulted by anyone considering me an ISKCONITE - ditto for Vaishnoi-s, Shaiva-s etc) Actually Shvu already had enough information about Ramanuja to show that Shvu cannot tell whether Ramanuja had the Divine Vision and Enlightenment before he approached the Shrootis or after. 2. Shvu asks, "Do you mean to say that until one has some kind of experience, he cannot believe in God?" Shvu asks a circuitous question and that is why I suggested another question more appropriate to the inquiry. However Shvu persists with his circuitous question. Accordingly, my answer is "No" and, also, "Yes". 3. Shvu proposes that bare "curiosity" drives one to seek God per se or to seek ABOUT God in the Shrootis. This gives rise to a more fundamental question: "Whence does this "curiosity" arise?" 4. Shvu has not been able to cite any Shrooti that expressly supports his claim that Shrooti is the ONLY MEANS to KNOW God. a) He cited commentary by Shankaracharya which is not Shrooti and which was commentary on KNOWING ABOUT God in the context of establishing a discursive or dialectical concept. Shvu now clarifies that he never claimed "shankara's [sic] commentary to be shruti". b) Shvu again refers me to the Kenopanishad, this time to the Pratham Khanda. For the second time I have gone to the Lake and find no Damsel there. Interestingly however I note at I:3 of the Kenopanishad that the Guru says, "We do not therefore know how to instruct you about It" (Sri Swami Sivananda translation - "The Principal Upanishads" , Divine Life Society, Rishikesh India). c) Shvu may also note Shrooti in Bhagavad Gita at II:29. The Supreme Being, Lord Krishna says, "One looks upon Him as a marvel, another likewise speaks of Him as a marvel, another hears of Him as a marvel; and even after hearing, no one whatsoever has known Him." (S Radhakrishnan translation "The Bhagavadgita" George Allen & Unwin paperback ISBN 0 04 891029 5). 5. Shvu agrees that a more appropriate question is, "Do you mean to say that a person having an EXPERIENCE goes to the Shrootis to establish a BELIEF that either the experience is divine or that it is not divine?" Yes, and conversely a person having a BELIEF in God established by Shrooti goes on to experience that subtantiates it or goes on to no experience at all. These statements are not meant to preclude the recognition that a BELIEF itself is an EXPERIENCE.

An agreed summary of the elements in Satyaraja's post (in italics) follows accompanied by Talasiga comments in normal script:- 1. God realisation is the highest state of consciousness. Agreed. 2. God realisation can only be had by God's Grace and is not dependent on the recipient having a particular state of consciousness. Agreed, and this also comprehends item 6 below subject to qualifications noted there. Noting also that, while God's Grace is independent, from the recipient's position the reception of the Grace a) is dependent on God b) is, subject to God's Grace, coloured by the recipient's state of consciousness. c) may be perceived by the recipient as a specific grace d) may be perceived by the recipient as perenial or inherent grace not previously recognised by the recipient e) may not be perceived by the recipient at all. 3. The integrative process of material consciousness is facilitated by the instruments of the senses, mind, intellect and ego identity. Agreed subject to a) the clarification that consciousness is eternally an attribute of the spirit and, therefore, material consciousness can only mean consciousness predominated by material content and not a material consciousness that is distinct to spiritual consciousness. b)noting that the ultimate "gestalten" of this integrative process is Brahman and c)this Brahman pervades the continuum of existence as infinite gestatltens ((b) and © is atempting to say that God is the essence of the integrative or harmonising process and also its goal ) 4. God is beyond the material and therefore the instruments of the senses, mind, intellect and ego identity serve no facility in relation to God consciousness. Disagreed because a) "beyond the material" is figurative and not meant to limit God locationally, noting that God is immanent (indwelling) as well as transcendent (beyond) and that "the material" cannot exist without God. b) acknowledging Satyaraja's own precept at item 2, with God's Grace the instruments of the senses, mind, intellect and ego identity may serve a facility in relation to God consciousness. 5. The terms of a former experience cannot validly be extrapolated to predict the nature of a new experience whose content is markedly different to the content of the former experience. This is a relatively true statement of absolutely no validity. The terms of all experiences are:- a) a consciousness that experiences b) the content of experience c) the integraion elicited between the differing qualities and degrees of the consciousness and the content. The nature of consciousness is of the Supreme. The nature of the content is of the Supreme. The nature of the integration is the Difference. Therefore all experiences may be extrapolated as, in essence, the Supreme knowing the Supreme in Harmonious (or Integrated) Difference. 6. No religious discipline can guarantee the realisation of the Bhagavaan (Personal Being) aspect of God. This is also subject to God's Grace which may be bestowed even on one who is practising a religious discipline. The Grace may itself be inherent in the discipline (compare specific Grace with perpetual or inherent Grace) for the Shabda itself asserts that Pranava Aum is non different to the Brahman and the Devotee of the Lord recognises that the Lord is non-different to His Name and Form. [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 06-25-2001).]

posted by Talasiga 06-22-2001 05:45PM If you look at the lives of the great Vedantin saints their theistic (personal God) conclusions are stimulated by the experience of the Lord. It is not a conclusion of some dry philosophical speculation as one sees in Western Universities. All scholars acknowledge that the Sanatan Dharma philosophies are experiential. Therefore these philosophical schools are experience driven and, in the context of this discussion, driven by the experience of the divine. The various schools of vedanta are different approaches to explain and test the validity of the experiences in terms of the valid means of knowledge which also includes the Revelations known as shrootis. Unfortunately, Shvu's preoccupation with shrooti as the only means to knowing God, tends to disregard the experiential emphasis of the vendantins. For instance, without pratyaksha (perception)how could one know the shrootis? Therefore, even with this little example, one can see that pratyaksha must at least be equal to shabda as a valid means of knowledge. By message posted 22 June 7:30PM Shvu critiqued the above posting. Talasiga invited Shvu to review his critique and Talasiga set out some perceived errors in Shvu's critique. Shvu has reviewed his critique and by posting of 23 June 7:06AM maintains his original position. Talasiga now responds to Shvu's critique with the benefit of Shvu's review of his critique:- 1. Shvu asked, "Can you quote an example?" Talasiga responds that Ramanuja is just one example. He is the leading acharya saint in the Vishishtaadvaita school of Vedaanta. Whilst in a very depressed state one day, he receives a Divine Vision and becomes enlightened (Gods Grace). 2. Shvu asks, "Do you mean to say that until one has some kind of experience, he cannot believe in God?" Talasiga suggests that a more appropriate question to examine Talasiga's position would have been, "Do you mean to say experience of God displaces belief in God?" 3. Shvu asks, "So does one begin to seek to find out if there is a God, or does one set out to seek God with the premise that God exists as stated in Sruti?' Talasiga suggests that there is a more fundamental question and asks, "What drives one to seek God per se or to seek about God in the Shrootis?" And Talasiga also suggests that a more appropriate question to examine Talasiga's position would have been, "Do you mean to say that a person having an EXPERIENCE goes to the Shrootis to establish a BELIEF that either the experience is divine or that it is not divine?" 4. Shvu quotes Adi Shankara commentary to support his claim that Shrooti is the only way to know God. Talasiga notes that (a) Adi Shankara's commentary is not Shrooti; (b) Adi Shankara's commentary is mere DIALECTIC about the concept of God as a discursive conclusion. © Adi Shankara also said in commentary on Maandookya Kaarikaa (IV, 73) that scripture is an empirical object and therefore ILLUSORY and exists only as A means to the realisation of the Supreme. 5. Shvu also attempts to support his claim that "God cannot be known thru [sic]means other than shruti" suggesting that Talasiga look at Kenopanishad. Talasiga finds Kenopanishad a most powerful and inspiring scripture but can find no statement in it that Shrooti is the only way to know God.

This is an curious posting, Satyaraja Dasji. The salient elements in your posting appear to be:- 1. God realisation is the highest state of consciousness. 2. God realisation can only be had by God's Grace and is not dependent on the recipient having a particular state of consciousness. 3. The integrative process of material consciousness is faciltated by the instruments of the senses, mind, intellect and ego identity. 4. God is beyond the material and therefore the instruments of the senses, mind, intellect and ego identity serve no facility in relation to God consciousness. 5. The terms of a former experience cannot validly be extrapolated to predict the nature of a new experience whose content is markedly different to the content of the former experience. Before I respond, is this a good summary of the elements in your posting? (PS I will be back in circa 36 hours - I have some programs to attend to)

Shvu's latest posting appears to be fettered by the following: 1. confusing a reference to experience as a reference to belief 2. confusing a reference to knowing God with a reference to establishing God as a discursive conclusion 3. inferring that the reference to the shrooti by Seekers as a basis for belief in God excludes the reference to the shrooti by the Enlightened as an authority to validate their Divine experience and as a basis to expound on God. 4. mistaking a commentary by Adi Shankara as being equal to a shrooti in reply to the inferred question, "Which shrooti states that the only way to know God is through shrooti?' 5. the failure to acknowledge that, if knowledge through "x" (say, shrooti) is dependent on "y" (say, perception), then "x" is subrated by "y". In fairness to shvu, and for clarity in sustainable discussion, I invite him to take this opportunity to reviewhis posting before I respond to it.

If you look at the lives of the great Vedantin saints their theistic (personal God) conclusions are stimulated by the experience of the Lord. It is not a conclusion of some dry philosophical speculation as one sees in Western Universities. All scholars acknowledge that the Sanatan Dharma philosophies are experiential. Therefore these philosophical schools are experience driven and, in the context of this discussion, driven by the experience of the divine. The various schools of vedanta are different approaches to explain and test the validity of the experiences in terms of the valid means of knowledge which also includes the Revelations known as shrootis. Unfortunately, Shvu's preoccupation with shrooti as the only means to knowing God, tends to disregard the experiential emphasis of the vendantins. For instance, without pratyaksha (perception)how could one know the shrootis? Therefore, even with this little example, one can see that pratyaksha must at least be equal to shabda as a valid means of knowledge.

Even the shrooti does not say what shvu says.