Thank You

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

There was some problem with the headers. I am forwarding my reply to
the list.

> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy at morgan.ucs.mun.ca> wrote:
>
> > I share with Shri Ramakrishnan, Anand, Jaladhar Vyas and Ravi
> > the thinking that the vedAs are the source of parA vidyA.
> > I never had any doubt about it and will not have any doubt about
> > it. That is my firmest conviction. I also accept without any
> > hesitation Shri Shankara's statements (as stated in Shankara
> > digvijaya by Madhavacharya) that what is stated in the shruti
> > need not and does not require any validation from any other
> > source. I also accept without hesitation that if ever there
> > is a conflict in what is stated in shruti and in other sources,
> > shruti statements take precedence (Radhakrishnan Principal
> > upanishads). These are some of the statements which followers
> > of vedA on this List and elsewhere can certainly empathize with.
>
> Then why make some statement insinuating that we were not followers
of
> vedAnta?
>
> > Now, the following are my personal views on the recent debate
> > on consciousness. The debate started innocently enough with
> > some genuine questions by Robert and genuine answers from other
> > members of the List. The debate quickly transformed into Robert
> > being pushed into a corner and forced to make secondary statements
> > (which have nothing to do with the original question or the topic)
>
> Au contraire, I got into the discussion mainly _after_ Robert
himself
> asked whether the veda-s were only a "guide" to interpreting
personal
> experience or an authority on it's own. Kindly go back and read the
> entire thread.
>
> > which were pounced on. Not everyone on the List is as
knowledgeable
> > about the vedAs as some of the stalwarts on the List. It is my
> > personal view that in such cases, the responses can be given with
> > compassion and understanding rather than an unwelcome and
>
> The veda is a pramANa by itself. How is this an unsympathetic
> put-down?
>
> > unsympathetic put-down. If we are true believers of advaita,
> > and if we practice advaita (apart from intellectual knowledge),
> > we would treat others with lesser knowledge of the vedAs with
> > more kid gloves rather than telling them advaita is not for you.
> > After all, who is to say who is advaita for ?
>
> I prefer to think that the person I am talking to is mature and can
> understand what some person like sha.nkara is trying to say, though
he
> may not agree with it. And who made any comments about who advaita
was
> for? It was Robert himself who stated his dissatisfaction and the
> reason for it.
>
> > And unfortunately, this has become too common and frequent a
> practice
> > on this List. In this episode, repeated statements have been made
> > empasizing the supremacy of the vedAs, thereby also denigrading
> > other philosophical (and religious) thoughts. People who have
> > their early growth in other faiths are being challenged (in a
rather
> > harsh way) to give up and surrender (when they are still not
ready)
> > their earlier beliefs and to accept supremacy of the vedAs of
which
> > they do not know much about. As Robert said in one of his posts,
> > this continuous stating of the supremacy of the vedAs (without
> > explaining why they are supreme) is not too different from some
> > of the fundamentalist Christian crusades where christianity is
> > considered the statement from God.
>
> There was killing in the fundamentalist crusades, or didn't you know
> that?
>
> > For people like Robert, who I believe is not entirely familiar
> > with the upanishads, a show of tolerance and gentle explanation
> > of the contents of the vedAs are required, not harsh "advaita is
> > not for you" statements.
>
> Again, who said advaita is not for him? It was he himself who said
> that. I prefer to think he has thought it through and doesn't
require
> kids-gloves or any other gloves.
>
> > I apologize if I have exceeded my limits as a List-member in
making
> > the above statement and my earlier post on this topic. I have made
> > this comment after considerable thought and after seeing many
> examples
> > of "advaita is not for you" statements on this List. I take
support
>
> Sorry, but this is only your own misinterpretation of other people's
> posts.
>
> Rama
>
>