Prophetiszing trends in modern Hindusim

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

>

[Guest guest]

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?)

>

[Guest guest]

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?)

> >

>

[Guest guest]

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?)

> >

>

[Guest guest]

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?)

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

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.

>

[Guest guest]

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.)

[Guest guest]

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.)

[Guest guest]

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.)

>

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

>

[Guest guest]

(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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

--- 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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

--- 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

[Guest guest]

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:

[Guest guest]

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

>

[Guest guest]

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

>

[Guest guest]

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

> >

>