clarification from Sri Dave regarding paramhamsas

[hbdave]

Hemant wrote:

> ---------------
> My slow response to Sri Dave¢®?s posting
>
>
> The first type of person has a direct and unmistakable contact with
> the
> Ultimate Reality. These are the most profound persons and are called
> {\skt paramaha.msa} (those who have finally achieved oneness with the
> Ultimate
> Reality). They generally keep quiet. In recent times in our country,
> two
> persons come to my mind
>
> -- {\skt raamak.r.s.na paramaha.msa} and
>
> {\skt rama.na mahar.si}
> -- who can be called this way.
>
> The second type of person describes it after understanding
> the true nature of Ultimate Reality. He is considered a little bit
> defective
> as he tries to describe the undescribable. This refers to philosophers
> who
> talk or argue about nature of Ultimate Reality. They try to convince
> others.
> They teach and guide others. They will have to learn to keep quiet.
>
>
> Hemantt: This was the passage which provoked my comment. He (Sankara)
> chose to philosophize about the nature of the ultimate. He taught and
> guided others in a most deliberate way.
>
> May-be you can clarify or modify your statement.
>
>

Himanshu replies :

1.    I have already responded and stated my view-point in the previous
mail,
        which I hope is available with the list members.

2.    Shri Ken Knight and Shri Srikrishna Ghadiyaram have given their
        view points which are quite clear. (Thanks Ken, thanks
Srikrishna)

In view of the above  I should not be discussing further.
The very fact that such a point has been brought up tells me that I
should
not discuss further.

But the medium of Internet is peculiar. These mails will be on record.
Least a wrong impression is carried, very reluctantly, I put down the
following :

1.    How does Hemant conclude that I  was pointing to Bhagatpad
        Adi Shankara ? Have I named him? Or given any indications
        to identify him?

2.    It is Hemant how has mis-interpreted the word "philosopher" to
        mean a particular person (i.e. Bhagavatpad Adi Shankara).
        If you do that, then you are putting him in a category of mere
philosopher.
        He was much much more than that. It is Western scholarship which

        calls Adi Shankara a philosopher, to us is he merely that only?

3.    I request you to read carefully all that I have written. Anywhere
do you
        find any slure on Bhagavatpad? In fact if you read my previous
series
        of postings on RigVeda (sometimes in 2000) you will notice that
I had
        started with a prayer to Adi Shankara and Vyasa, putting them
together.

4.    The passages were written as explanation of a Shloka from Geeta,
where
        *in  that context only* Shri Krishna seems to be talking about
various
        types of persons having different approaches to Ultimate
Reality.

Let me pass ageneral comment : I feel to achieve anything at all on the
path
of spirituality a little bit less of aggression, narrowness of  views,
etc. will be
required. Ken has put it very nicely.

India is very fortunate to have a great linage of saints, seers,
teachers. They are
like stars guiding us in the dark night of our human failures. The light
that
helps us on the Way is the combined light of all these bright stars. I
gave
names of only two of our stars only because they popped up in my mind at

that time. Of course the other names suggested by Srikrishna (and there
are
many more, counting them would be wrong) are all in the same category of

bright stars. If I have not named them it is failure of my aging mind
and
definitely not a disrespect to any of them.

{After I wrote above I hope no one will say, you did not mention
saints in Western and other parts of  the world.  :-) }

-- Himanshu