Texts

[Ravi]

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:45:55 -0800, Srikrishna Ghadiyaram
<srikrishna_ghadiyaram at YAHOO.COM> wrote in response to Vaidya:

>Hari Om !!
>Needless to say, your interpretation is incorrect.
>First of all when we say 'sravana' it is not listening
>to 'karma' of any type. Sravana means listening to the
>sastra expounding the 'Tat tvam asi' as its final
>proclamation.  Manana is reflecting/debating with
>in/out, about the arguments presented to lead us to
>the ultimate understanding of 'tat tvam asi'.
>Obviously, you should be able to deduce that 'mananam'
>is some thing that follows (not even follows ..
>because it is going on parallel to sravana).
>Nididhyasana is contemplating on the final truth
>assimilated through 'manana'.

I agree. shravaNa in the context of advaita-vedAnta is listening vedanta
mahavakyams such the one you quote from one's guru. I did not mean that as
theory in my original post. manana is mentally resolving any doubts and
assimilating the truth and nidhidhyAsana is constantly contemplating on it.
This whole thing is indeed the practice. This is can be truly practised
only by those who have renounced the attachments, such as my wife, my
children, wealth etc. Truly, from iishavAsyopanishhad it is applicable only
to sannyAsins.

My classification of theory and practice is from a simple practical point
of view and based on my experience. For me, who is not a sannyAsi, doing
nitya karma is the practice. (I do some s-m-n type sadhaana, but on verses
and works such as abhirAmi antAdi, Lalitaa sahasranAma, aananda saagara
stavaH, saundarya laharI etc. this is a side point, as I do that for
enhancing and enriching my sharaNagati to ambaaL). What I meant by theory,
is understanding the basics of advaita-vedAnta and it principles. I am not
eligible (as it stands now) to do the actual practise of advaita-vedAnta.
Hence, my reading of either vivekachuuDamanI or iishavAsyopanishhad
bhaashya, directly does not lead me to  nidhidhyAsana. But what is does is,
whenever I have a gumption trap, it cheers me up and help me to do the
nitya karmaanushhTaanam with a iishavaraarpaNa bhaava, there by I may
become pure and eventually qualify of the sadhana of shravaNa-manana-
nidhidhyAsana. And gives me the correct perspective.

This is what I meant by theory and practise, in my loosely stated response
to Nanda.  Every practise or sadhana has an underlying theory. It is true
in all fields of endeavour. When I say I am going to measure viscosity of
oil, I up front assume that there is such a thing called viscosity of oil
and is defined by such and such equations. My actual act of measuring
viscosity of oil, presupposes the presence of a robust theory to do it. I
could model the same stress-strain behavior of oil in an entirely different
way, and measure a totally different thing.


This is true to vedAnta also. The same vedAnta vAkyams, understood from a
different stand point leads to different practises and different results.
Hence, there is an underlying theoretical framework for advaita-vedAnta
which in our opinion supported by veda-s, which is hopefully realized by
actual practise of the s-n-m sadhana.  This is why same vedanta, yields
different results. Because each school of thought starts with a definite
presupposed notion and tries to read its position in vedAnta. And of
course, each school will deny that they are doing it and claim that they
are stating what is inherent in veda-s without distortion (will also claim
others are distorting it). In fact, if you do not start with the idea or
notion of abheda in the state of realization, you will never realize it.
This is because, that very assumption or lack of it, will cripple (or
correct) your practice, and block your path. (Sri ramakrishhNa vividly
describes in one of his practises).


Even now it is as loosely stated as the original mail. And I have no
interest in further dealing with your objections. Hence, you may consider
your objections correct.


Ravi