New member introduction: Ravi Kumar

[K Kathirasan NCS]

Namaste

I am also from SIngapore. Apart from Chinmaya Mission (which is called
Chinmaya Seva Centre in Singapore), Ramakrishna Mission and the Hindu Centre
also hold Vedanta classes.  Presently, a brahmachari (a disciple of Swami
Shuddananda http://sfsk.tripod.com ) is teaching Drg Drshya Viveka at the
Hindu Centre.

For more information, you may contact me.

best regards,
K Kathirasan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Srikrishna Ghadiyaram [SMTP:srikrishna_ghadiyaram at YAHOO.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 6:03 AM
> To:   ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG
> Subject:      Re: New member introduction: Ravi Kumar
>
> Hari Om !!
>
> I do not think you would be alone in Singapore if you
> are in search of others in the path. One first attempt
> could be to start interacting with people at Chinmaya
> Mission in Singapore. You may contact:
>
>  singapore at chinmayamission.org
>  +65 338 9184
>  +65 738 1664
>
> I believe, there would be other Vedanta circles in
> Singapore. Once you get into one group you should come
> to know many other groups in a similar pursuit.
>
> Om Namo Narayanaya !!
>
> Srikrishna
>
>
> --- "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM> wrote:
> > OM GURUBHYO NAMAH
> >
> > PRAVARAM
> >
> > ||  CHATUSSAGARA PARYANTAM GOBRAHMANEBHYAH SHUBHAM
> > BHAVATO
> >      KASHYAPAAVATSAARA NAIDRUVA TRIIYAARUSHEYA
> > PRAVAMRITA
> >      KASHYAPASA GOTHRA
> >      APASTAMBA SUTRA
> >      YADUSHAKAADHYAYE NAGESHA SHARMA AHAMBO
> > ABHIVADAYE  ||
> >
> > MY (OFFICIAL) NAME IS RAVI KUMAR GANJIGUNTA
> > SESHADRI. I AM 29 YEARS OLD,
> > WORKING IN SINGAPORE. I AM ENGINEER (FROM REC
> > TRICHY) AND MBA (FROM IIM
> > LUCKNOW). I AM A MARKETING AND SALES MANAGEMENT
> > PROFESSIONAL, AND WAS
> > WORKING WITH HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED (HLL) BEFORE
> > EMIGRATING TO SINGAPORE.
> >
> > I AM SINGLE, MY PARENTS ARE IN INDIA (BANGALORE).
> >
> > I WAS INTRODUCED TO ADVAITA BY A COLLEAGUE AT HLL A
> > FEW YEARS AGO. I WOULD
> > LIKE TO UNDERSTAND ITS MESSAGE BETTER, WHICH I HAVE
> > NOT BEEN ABLE TO WITH
> > INDEPENDANT READING. WITH NOT MUCH ACCESS TO
> > LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE I LOOK
> > FORWARD TO THIS MAILING LIST AS A SOURCE FOR
> > INSPIRATION AND INSIGHTS INTO
> > THIS WONDERFUL KNOWLEDGE.
> >
> > I HAVE READ YOUR LIST POLICIES AS DESCRIBED IN THIS
> > MAIL BELOW, AND I AGREE
> > TO ABIDE BY THEM.
> >
> > I REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY ADD MY NAME TO YOUR LIST.
> >
> > BEST REGARDS
> >
> > RAVI
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com

>From  Tue Apr  8 20:34:20 2003
Message-Id: <TUE.8.APR.2003.203420.0700.>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 20:34:20 -0700
Reply-To: sanjay1297 at yahoo.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
From: Sanjay Verma <sanjay1297 at YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Old topics
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-78724798-1049859260=:24199"

--0-78724798-1049859260=:24199
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


Pranam to all,

Previously there was some discussion on the sources of authority in the Advaita Vedanta tradition, which began with the subject "Statements in our Shastras" and grew from there to various corollary topics.

1) Bhagavad Gita

I had asserted that the Bhagavad Gita holds a special place in the tradition. I claimed that although it is considered part of the Mahabharata from a literary standpoint, that spiritually it is not given the same treatment as other Smriti texts. My view was emphatically refuted.

I submit the following for further consideration:

a) The following is from the book "Shankara and Adhyasa-Bhashya" by Professor S. K. Ramachandra Rao (copyright 2002) on page 64 in the chapter entitled "What did he rely on?":

"It is obvious, both from an analysis of these citations and from his own acknowledged preferences, that Shruti for him means the concluding portions of the Vedic lore which also contain the final import of the scriptural tradition viz. the Upanishads (or the Vedanta).

"As one belonging to the doctrinal fold well within the broad Vedic tradition, he also relies on some secondary sources like the Sutras of Asvalayana, Katyayana and Apastamba, the two great epics Ramayana and Mahabharata, some Puranas (e.g., Markandeya), and some socio-religious treatises (dharma-shastras like the one by Manu). His reliance on them, however is negligible and casual. The exception is the Bhagavad-Gita, from which he quotes frequently, and which he looks upon as an important source. It is well-known that there is a commentary on this work ascribed to him. But he does not recognize it as a part of the epic, Mahabharata, as is usually understood."

b) In the "Brahma Sutra Bhashya of Shankaracharya" as translated by Swami Gambhirananda (Advaita Ashrama), the following is from the foreword, as written by Dr. T.M.P. Mahadevan (Director, Center for Advanced Study in Philosophy, University of Madras):

"The Bhagavad-Gita comes next only to the Upanishads. It is given a status which is almost equal to that of the Upanishads. As embodying the teachings of Sri Krishna, and as constituting the cream of the Epic Mahabharata, the Bhagavad-Gita occupies a unique place in the Vedantic tradition. A popular verse compares the Upanishads to the cows, the Bhagavad-Gita to the milk, Sri Krishna to the milkman, Arjuna, the Pandava hero, to the calf, and the wise people to the partakers of the milk. Sri Shankara describes the Bhagavad-Gita as the quintessence of the teaching of the entire Veda (samasta-vedartha-sarasangraha-bhutam)."

c) The following is from the opening pages of the pocket edition of the Bhagavad Gita, printed by Gita Press, Gorakhpur:

“Sri Vedavyasa, after describing the Gita in the Mahabharata, said in the end: --

“Gita sugita kartavya kimanyaih shastravistraih |
Ya svayam padmanabhasya mukhpadmadvinihsrita ||

I draw attention to the second part of the first line, which is translated as follows:

“What is the use of studying other elaborate scriptures?”

“Moreover, the Lord Himself also described its glory a the end of the Gita (vide Chapter XVIII verses 68 to 71).”

I draw attention especially to verses 68 and 69:

He who imparts this transcendent secret to My devotee, nurturing utmost devotion to Me, will doubtlessly attain Me. (BG 18:68)

None among men, other than he, does a deed dearer to Me; nor is there in the world one dearer to Me. (BG 18:69)

One need not agree with these assessments. However, it is clear that I was not referring to some "mysterious Hinduism" nor is my assertion of the special status of the Bhagavad Gita unknown in the Vedanta tradition. While similar statements may be found for other individual texts, the preponderance of evidence suggests that at least some in the Vedanta tradition hold the Bhagavad Gita in a very special status in terms of scriptural authority (i.e., “second only to the Upanishads”). Also, note that none of the citations are from persons in the “As It Is” tradition.

2) Shruti versus Smriti

The reason I had raised the issue of the Bhagavad Gita's status in the Vedanta tradition was because of some statements in the Shastras and whether or not we should continue to follow them.

The following is from Adi Shankaracharya’s commentary on the Brahma Sutras (II.i.1) where the Vedantin position is expressed as follows:

" 'With the help of the Smritis, we shall meet the arguments of those who take their stand on the Smritis'. It was shown earlier that the Upanishads have for their purport God as the cause. In a case of conflict among the Smritis themselves, when it become incumbent to accept some and reject others, the Smritis agreeing with the Upanishads are to be accepted as valid, while the others are not to be relied on. Thus it has been said in the course of determining the validity of the means of knowledge: 'When a Smriti contradicts a Vedic text, it is not to be relied on (and ought to be rejected); for a Vedic text can be inferred to exist as the basis of a Smriti passage only when there is no such contradiction' (Jai. Su I.iii.3)."

This is the point I was trying to make: that some texts do hold more weight than others, and that when there is a conflict Shruti texts supercede what is asserted in the Smriti texts. All this leads to the following…

3) Caste Determination

As was overtly acknowledged in this discussion group (without refutation), the Prasthana Treya are: 1) Upanishads, 2) Bhagavad Gita, 3) Brahma Sutras, and as I put forth a list of Upanishads to which no one objected (except that the Katha Upanishad was listed twice), I submit the "Sri Vajrasucika Upanishad of the Sama Veda" which directly discusses caste determination:

In it, it negates the misconceptions that caste is determined by life (jiva), body (deha), birth (jati), knowledge (jnana), work (karma) and duty (dharma). After a series of examples via the typical Upanishadic question-answer format which demonstrate that each of the above cannot be the determinants of castes (in this case a Brahmana), it asserts:

"Who indeed then is a brahmana? A brahmana is he who is absorbed in the Supreme Self. He is free from all mundane attributes of birth, work, and material qualities. His nature is that he takes pleasure in the knowledge of the unlimited Supreme Truth. A real brahmana is he who totally absorbed in the infinite, limitless, Absolute Supreme Person who is present in the hearts of all. That Supreme Lord is indivisible, and His nature is divine ecstasy. Such a brahmana is free from faults such as lust, anger, greed, pride, illusion and envy. He has all twelve qualities of a brahmana beginning with the peacefulness and self-control. He is never envious and is free from illusion and from any trace of pride and false-ego. One who has these qualities may be called a brahmana. This is the opinion of Shruti, Smriti, itihasa, and the puranas. No other endowments of perfection can confer brahmanical status."

As has been stated above, any Smriti text which contradicts an Upanishad is to be rejected (by Adi Shankara's own commentary on the Brahma Sutra in the aforementioned quote).

4) "An Advaitin Never Lies"

The above statement was made in response to my narration that my grandfather changed our family name after partition when we moved from Multan to U.P.

First, I never asserted that my grandfather was an advaitin.

Second, even in the Mahabharata, the Pandavas had to obscure their identity for one year to fulfill the terms of a bet. Furthermore, in the final battle, I believe it was Dharmaraja who uttered, "Ashvathama is dead" to intentionally deceive his opponent (intentionally misleading his opponent to believe that his son had died, rather than Ashvathama being the name of an elephant, so as to startle his opponent with grief). Furthermore, the Pandavas violated many rules of war (e.g., striking an unarmed person from behind) using the justification of doing what was necessary to win the war (the bigger picture of upholding dharma).

An act of commission is different than an act of omission. Obscuring one's identity for survival (anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Indian history should be aware of the massive bloodshed that took place during partition) is different than actively telling a lie. One should be careful not to pass judgment about what another person does during wartime to ensure survival. Furthermore, in Brahma Sutras (III.iv.30), it states with references to prohibitions:

"...when a calamity befalls, all kinds of food can be eaten indiscriminately by the enlightened and unenlightened alike: 'Just as a lotus leaf is not drenched by water, so also a man, who eats food from wherever he gets it when life is in jeopardy, is not affected by sin.' "

The point here being that in a calamity allowances (on the issue of what is considered righteous) are made for survival.

Furthermore, I thought long and hard about whether or not I wanted to dignify such a statement with a response. Such attacks on family lineage are more appropriate for political mudslinging and not appropriate for intellectual discussions and/or debates. I chose to respond to this in hopes that future discussions will be on a more mature level of exchanging ideas and providing justification for one’s own perspective. The story of Satyakama Jabala (Chandogya Upanishad IV:4) is now well known in this discussion group. Note that Satyakama is accepted as a student on the basis of his shameless adherence to truth, despite his lack of knowledge of his gotra. The teacher made no commentary on Satyakama’s lineage, which is how spiritual discussions ought to take place.

5) "These Babaji's"

It has already been made clear that at least one person believes that Sri Sathya Sai Baba’s teachings do not accurately represent Vedanta. I do not know on what grounds this conclusion was made (the only explanation offered being his mother's judgment). However, if (and I emphasize IF) this is based on the experience of the bhajan groups that many Sri Sathya Sai Baba devotees attend, then one has grossly misunderstood the teachings of Sri Sathya Sai Baba. As has been made clear, this discussion group is about Advaita Vedanta as taught by Shankaracharya, so I shall not waste anyone's time with elaborations on Sri Sathya Sai Baba's teachings. Suffice it to say for now that I invite anyone interested to read Sri Sathya Sai Baba's speeches and his own books (not the books by his followers). He has given brief lectures (which serve the basis of some of his books) on the Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutras, Vedas, Vedanta, Shankaracharya, Bhaja Govindam, etc. These can be found online at:

http://www.sathyasai.org/

http://www.vahini.org/downloads.html

To date, I have yet to find any contradiction in the teachings of Sri Sathya Sai Baba and the direct teachings of Adi Shankaracharya, but I leave that for each one to decide for himself or herself and do not wish to further any debates on the matter.

I raise this issue only to emphasize that in a discussion or debate, one should be able to support one’s assertions with concrete examples that everyone can evaluate, and not make judgments solely on heresay.

6) Practice of Vedanta

Finally, we can go around and around on this without any conclusion, but I assert once again that the spirit of Vedanta is one which is practiced by embodying it in one’s being (i.e., thought, word and deed), and not by scriptural reference(s) or association to any group or lineage or by practicing notions of superiority, purity, or distinction. Passing judgments on another's family lineage, taking pride on gotra or tracing one's lineage back several centuries or even millennia, or claiming greater religious authority in one part of the country or another... all such actions do not uphold the emphasis in the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita of being wise as demonstrated by one's behavior and speech, not one's association.

Professor Rao (mentioned above) describes Shankara's attitude on ‘experience’ as follows: "He would reject the evidence of all other means of knowledge, if personal experience  warranted a detail. He also recognizes that in such matters as spiritual attainments one's own experience is solely authoritative: it cannot be disputed by another, with all the armor of correct knowledge at his command." [This Prof. Rao concludes from Brahma Sutras (4, 1, 15) ] So, let us share our respective perspectives, and provide illuminating information if we believe another person’s perspective is missing the mark, but let us not get lost in asserting that one person’s view is “right” or “wrong”.

In BG 5:18-19 it states that a sage ought to “perceive the same truth in the Brahmana rich in knowledge and culture, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eating outcaste.” Adi Shankaracharya’s commentary refutes the Smriti statement which asserts that “the food should not be accepted from him who invidiously treats equals as unequals and unequals as equals (Gautama Dharmasutras 17.20).” Adi Shankaracharya says that such food is not tainted for the wise. So, where does that leave notions of impurity after contact with another human being?

Before one takes a “critical” stance and suggests that Sri Krishna might be but a “literary character”, perhaps one should first question the teachings of acharyas who may not embody the wisdom of Vedanta in their actions.

But then again, who am I? As has been alleged, I do not know Vedanta, which is ironic, and even amusing.

Om Shanti,
Sanjay


_______________________________________

The journey of a thousand miles begins
with a single step.--Chinese Proverb

_______________________________________


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
--0-78724798-1049859260=:24199
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Pranam to all, <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Previously there was some discussion on the sources of authority in the Advaita Vedanta tradition, which began with the subject "Statements in our Shastras" and grew from there to various corollary topics. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">1) Bhagavad Gita <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I had asserted that the Bhagavad Gita holds a special place in the tradition. I claimed that although it is considered part of the Mahabharata from a literary standpoint, that spiritually it is not given the same treatment as other Smriti texts. My view was emphatically refuted. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I submit the following for further consideration: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">a) The following is from the book "Shankara and Adhyasa-Bhashya" by Professor S. K. Ramachandra Rao (copyright 2002) on page 64 in the chapter entitled "What did he rely on?": <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">"It is obvious, both from an analysis of these citations and from his own acknowledged preferences, that Shruti for him means the concluding portions of the Vedic lore which also contain the final import of the scriptural tradition viz. the Upanishads (or the Vedanta). <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">"As one belonging to the doctrinal fold well within the broad Vedic tradition, he also relies on some secondary sources like the Sutras of Asvalayana, Katyayana and Apastamba, the two great epics Ramayana and Mahabharata, some Puranas (e.g., Markandeya), and some socio-religious treatises (dharma-shastras like the one by Manu). His reliance on them, however is negligible and casual. The exception is the Bhagavad-Gita, from which he quotes frequently, and which he looks upon as an important source. It is well-known that there is a commentary on this work ascribed to him. But he does not recognize it as a part of the epic, Mahabharata, as is usually understood." <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">b) In the "Brahma Sutra Bhashya of Shankaracharya" as translated by Swami Gambhirananda (Advaita Ashrama), the following is from the foreword, as written by Dr. T.M.P. Mahadevan (Director, Center for Advanced Study in Philosophy, University of Madras): <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">"The Bhagavad-Gita comes next only to the Upanishads. It is given a status which is almost equal to that of the Upanishads. As embodying the teachings of Sri Krishna, and as constituting the cream of the Epic Mahabharata, the Bhagavad-Gita occupies a unique place in the Vedantic tradition. A popular verse compares the Upanishads to the cows, the Bhagavad-Gita to the milk, Sri Krishna to the milkman, Arjuna, the Pandava hero, to the calf, and the wise people to the partakers of the milk. Sri Shankara describes the Bhagavad-Gita as the quintessence of the teaching of the entire Veda (samasta-vedartha-sarasangraha-bhutam)." <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">c) The following is from the opening pages of the pocket edition of the Bhagavad Gita, printed by Gita Press, Gorakhpur:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">“Sri Vedavyasa, after describing the Gita in the Mahabharata, said in the end: --<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">“Gita sugita kartavya kimanyaih shastravistraih |<BR>Ya svayam padmanabhasya mukhpadmadvinihsrita ||<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I draw attention to the second part of the first line, which is translated as follows:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">“What is the use of studying other elaborate scriptures?”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">“Moreover, the Lord Himself also described its glory a the end of the Gita (vide Chapter XVIII verses 68 to 71).” <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I draw attention especially to verses 68 and 69:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">He who imparts this transcendent secret to My devotee, nurturing utmost devotion to Me, will doubtlessly attain Me. (BG 18:68)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">None among men, other than he, does a deed dearer to Me; nor is there in the world one dearer to Me. (BG 18:69)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">One need not agree with these assessments. However, it is clear that I was not referring to some "mysterious Hinduism" nor is my assertion of the special status of the Bhagavad Gita unknown in the Vedanta tradition. While similar statements may be found for other individual texts, the preponderance of evidence suggests that at least some in the Vedanta tradition hold the Bhagavad Gita in a very special status in terms of scriptural authority (i.e., “second only to the Upanishads”). Also, note that none of the citations are from persons in the “As It Is” tradition.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">2) Shruti versus Smriti <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The reason I had raised the issue of the Bhagavad Gita's status in the Vedanta tradition was because of some statements in the Shastras and whether or not we should continue to follow them. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The following is from Adi Shankaracharya’s commentary on the Brahma Sutras (II.i.1) where the Vedantin position is expressed as follows: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">" 'With the help of the Smritis, we shall meet the arguments of those who take their stand on the Smritis'. It was shown earlier that the Upanishads have for their purport God as the cause. In a case of conflict among the Smritis themselves, when it become incumbent to accept some and reject others, the Smritis agreeing with the Upanishads are to be accepted as valid, while the others are not to be relied on. Thus it has been said in the course of determining the validity of the means of knowledge: 'When a Smriti contradicts a Vedic text, it is not to be relied on (and ought to be rejected); for a Vedic text can be inferred to exist as the basis of a Smriti passage only when there is no such contradiction' (Jai. Su I.iii.3)." <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">This is the point I was trying to make: that some texts do hold more weight than others, and that when there is a conflict Shruti texts supercede what is asserted in the Smriti texts. All this leads to the following…<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">3) Caste Determination <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">As was overtly acknowledged in this discussion group (without refutation), the Prasthana Treya are: 1) Upanishads, 2) Bhagavad Gita, 3) Brahma Sutras, and as I put forth a list of Upanishads to which no one objected (except that the Katha Upanishad was listed twice), I submit the "Sri Vajrasucika Upanishad of the Sama Veda" which directly discusses caste determination: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In it, it negates the misconceptions that caste is determined by life (jiva), body (deha), birth (jati), knowledge (jnana), work (karma) and duty (dharma). After a series of examples via the typical Upanishadic question-answer format which demonstrate that each of the above cannot be the determinants of castes (in this case a Brahmana), it asserts: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">"Who indeed then is a brahmana? A brahmana is he who is absorbed in the Supreme Self. He is free from all mundane attributes of birth, work, and material qualities. His nature is that he takes pleasure in the knowledge of the unlimited Supreme Truth. A real brahmana is he who totally absorbed in the infinite, limitless, Absolute Supreme Person who is present in the hearts of all. That Supreme Lord is indivisible, and His nature is divine ecstasy. Such a brahmana is free from faults such as lust, anger, greed, pride, illusion and envy. He has all twelve qualities of a brahmana beginning with the peacefulness and self-control. He is never envious and is free from illusion and from any trace of pride and false-ego. One who has these qualities may be called a brahmana. This is the opinion of Shruti, Smriti, itihasa, and the puranas. No other endowments of perfection can confer brahmanical status." <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">As has been stated above, any Smriti text which contradicts an Upanishad is to be rejected (by Adi Shankara's own commentary on the Brahma Sutra in the aforementioned quote). <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">4) "An Advaitin Never Lies" <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The above statement was made in response to my narration that my grandfather changed our family name after partition when we moved from Multan to U.P. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">First, I never asserted that my grandfather was an advaitin. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Second, even in the Mahabharata, the Pandavas had to obscure their identity for one year to fulfill the terms of a bet. Furthermore, in the final battle, I believe it was Dharmaraja who uttered, "Ashvathama is dead" to intentionally deceive his opponent (intentionally misleading his opponent to believe that his son had died, rather than Ashvathama being the name of an elephant, so as to startle his opponent with grief). Furthermore, the Pandavas violated many rules of war (e.g., striking an unarmed person from behind) using the justification of doing what was necessary to win the war (the bigger picture of upholding dharma).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">An act of commission is different than an act of omission. Obscuring one's identity for survival (anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Indian history should be aware of the massive bloodshed that took place during partition) is different than actively telling a lie. One should be careful not to pass judgment about what another person does during wartime to ensure survival. Furthermore, in Brahma Sutras (III.iv.30), it states with references to prohibitions: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">"...when a calamity befalls, all kinds of food can be eaten indiscriminately by the enlightened and unenlightened alike: 'Just as a lotus leaf is not drenched by water, so also a man, who eats food from wherever he gets it when life is in jeopardy, is not affected by sin.' " <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The point here being that in a calamity allowances (on the issue of what is considered righteous) are made for survival. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Furthermore, I thought long and hard about whether or not I wanted to dignify such a statement with a response. Such attacks on family lineage are more appropriate for political mudslinging and not appropriate for intellectual discussions and/or debates. I chose to respond to this in hopes that future discussions will be on a more mature level of exchanging ideas and providing justification for one’s own perspective. The story of Satyakama Jabala (Chandogya Upanishad IV:4) is now well known in this discussion group. Note that Satyakama is accepted as a student on the basis of his shameless adherence to truth, despite his lack of knowledge of his gotra. The teacher made no commentary on Satyakama’s lineage, which is how spiritual discussions ought to take place.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">5) "These Babaji's" <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">It has already been made clear that at least one person believes that Sri Sathya Sai Baba’s teachings do not accurately represent Vedanta. I do not know on what grounds this conclusion was made (the only explanation offered being his mother's judgment). However, if (and I emphasize <STRONG>IF</STRONG>) this is based on the experience of the bhajan groups that many Sri Sathya Sai Baba devotees attend, then one has grossly misunderstood the teachings of Sri Sathya Sai Baba. As has been made clear, this discussion group is about Advaita Vedanta as taught by Shankaracharya, so I shall not waste anyone's time with elaborations on Sri Sathya Sai Baba's teachings. Suffice it to say for now that I invite anyone interested to read Sri Sathya Sai Baba's speeches and his own books (not the books by his followers). He has given brief lectures (which serve the basis of some of his books) on the Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutras, Vedas, Vedanta, Shankaracharya, Bhaja Govindam, etc. These can be found online at: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><A href="http://www.sathyasai.org/">http://www.sathyasai.org/</A> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><A href="http://www.vahini.org/downloads.html">http://www.vahini.org/downloads.html</A> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">To date, I have yet to find any contradiction in the teachings of Sri Sathya Sai Baba and the direct teachings of Adi Shankaracharya, but I leave that for each one to decide for himself or herself and do not wish to further any debates on the matter. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I raise this issue only to emphasize that in a discussion or debate, one should be able to support one’s assertions with concrete examples that everyone can evaluate, and not make judgments solely on heresay.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">6) Practice of Vedanta <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Finally, we can go around and around on this without any conclusion, but I assert once again that the spirit of Vedanta is one which is practiced by embodying it in one’s being (i.e., thought, word and deed), and not by scriptural reference(s) or association to any group or lineage or by practicing notions of superiority, purity, or distinction. Passing judgments on another's family lineage, taking pride on gotra or tracing one's lineage back several centuries or even millennia, or claiming greater religious authority in one part of the country or another... all such actions do not uphold the emphasis in the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita of being wise as demonstrated by one's behavior and speech, not one's association. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Professor Rao (mentioned above) describes Shankara's attitude on ‘experience’ as follows: "He would reject the evidence of all other means of knowledge, if personal experience  warranted a detail. He also recognizes that in such matters as spiritual attainments one's own experience is solely authoritative: it cannot be disputed by another, with all the armor of correct knowledge at his command." [This Prof. Rao concludes from Brahma Sutras (4, 1, 15) ] So, let us share our respective perspectives, and provide illuminating information if we believe another person’s perspective is missing the mark, but let us not get lost in asserting that one person’s view is “right” or “wrong”.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In BG 5:18-19 it states that a sage ought to “perceive the same truth in the Brahmana rich in knowledge and culture, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eating outcaste.” Adi Shankaracharya’s commentary <I>refutes</I> the Smriti statement which asserts that “the food should not be accepted from him who invidiously treats equals as unequals and unequals as equals (Gautama Dharmasutras 17.20).” Adi Shankaracharya says that such food is not tainted for the wise. So, where does that leave notions of impurity after contact with another human being?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Before one takes a “critical” stance and suggests that Sri Krishna <I>might</I> be but a “literary character”, perhaps one should first question the teachings of acharyas who <I>may</I> not embody the wisdom of Vedanta in their actions.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">But then again, who am I? As has been alleged, I do not know Vedanta, which is ironic, and even amusing.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P>Om Shanti,<BR>Sanjay</P><BR><BR>_______________________________________<br><br>The journey of a thousand miles begins<br>with a single step.--Chinese Proverb<br><br>_______________________________________<p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailsig/*http://tax.yahoo.com">Yahoo! Tax Center</a> - File online, calculators, forms, and more
--0-78724798-1049859260=:24199--