muktika upanishhad (was Re: Brahmana)

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Jaldhar Vyas wrote:

> Then listen to my shastric ones.

Where are they? I don't find any.

> Shankaracharya isn't St. Peter and his successors the Jagadgurus aren't
> the Pope.  They are master teachers and their teachngs should be listened
> to and understood.  But things don't become right just because they say
> so.  I need to use my brain and look at what the eternal Shruti and its
> ancillaries say and compare it to get the full picture.  And if there is a
> discrepancy I need to question and explore it.  That's the way I'm the
> same as Shankaracharya and that's the only way I'm going to be able to
> pass his teachings on to a new generation of Brahmans.

Tall claims from one who doesn't even know what brahma loka is from the
sentences like "te brahma loketu parAntakAle parAmR^itAt.h parimuchayanti
sarve" :-). Not to mention half baked theories from a yet-to-be-formed navya
pUrva mImA.nsA :-).

> > Pray, is it you by any chance, who is going to take up the monumental task
 of
> > forming this navya pUrva mImA.nsA?
>
> It would be too late.  While you were ensconsed in your ivory tower the
> work had already begun.  (Mimamsa is after all a practical tool.  That's
> why its referred to as Bhatta Tantra.)  So I can't found anything but I
> can certainly help.  I don't encourage people asking me dharmic questions
> because I feel they should talk to someone older and more experienced but
> sometimes they still do.  I give answers which my grandfather and even his
> grandfather would approve of.  And I do it based on _all_ relevant
> knowledge.

Actually apart from you, no one here cares what you, your grandfather or anyone
in your family have to say about this. _Unless_ you/your grandfather etc are
willing to quote from the works of the masters in the advaita tradition in
support. You may give garbled interpretations like what you have been giving
till now. But don't even think any of us traditional advaitins will give two
hoots for these fanciful concoctions of yours, especially when you are lacking
in knowledge of basic stuff. Is it only me who finds it extremely hilarious and
ironical that:

a. you call upon sha.nkara to support your fanciful interpretations,
b. claim later advaitins "contradicted gauDapAda" (sic), and
c. when cornered with counterexamples claim that shrI sha.nkara is not the
   St Peter?

I thought that we were discussing the advaitic tradition. But apparently we are
not. We seem to be discussing the opinions of you/your grand father etc. It's
quite clear that you were merely bluffing when you said you had looked through
the works of shrI sha.nkara. This forum is mainly for discussing the advaita as
established from shruti and reasoning by shrI gauDapAda, shrI sha.nkara et al.
This is what is known commonly as advaita, not your opinions formed from half
baked study of shruti. So any of the successors of shrI gauDapAda (Sringeri,
Puri, Dvaraka, Jyotir Math, Kanchi etc) or people recommended by them (like
shrI ramaNa maharshhi, shrI sadAshiva brahmendra etc) are fair game. That is
traditional advaitam. If you want to present your own fanciful theories (or
your grand father's), go ahead. It may earn you some brownie points with your
own family or England/American born people, not much else.

Note: The last sentence above should not be construed as a denigration of
non-Indians. There are _many_ such fine scholars and sAdhaka-s who are top notch
in their understanding of advaita like Alston, Trevor Leggett etc.

Ramakrishnan.
--
                  http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/