Vishnu and Shiva

[Srikrishna Ghadiyaram]

Hari Om !!

Those of you who are engaged in this unproductive
discussion, based on half-knowledge or no-knowledge,
may help ignorant people like me if you read up a
little more and engage in a discussion of this kind,
without wasting in unsubstantiated posts and replies.

Incidentally, I came across a reference to the
following title, which might help the discussion.

Harvard Oriental Series: Vol 5 & 6 Brihad Devata
(attributed to Saunaka): A summary of the deities and
myths of Rig-Veda, critically edited in original
Sanskrit (Nagari letters), with an introduction and
seven appendices (Vol 5), and translated into English
with critical and illustrative notes (Vol 6), by prof.
A. A. Macdonell: Publisher Motilal Banarsidas

I urge those of you who are engaged in this debate to
read this book and see if it can provide views of an
accepted sage.

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

Srikrishna


--- kalyan chakravarthy <kalyan_kc at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> Namaskaaram,
>
>
> >So you have no objection.
>
> I DO have objection reading it as rudra gaining
> strength from himself.
>
> >By the same token, the Veda should also not waste
> words by repitition,
> >since there is no need to know something already
> known. But the Veda
> >repeatedly points out that Brahman ought to be
> known.
>
> Let it point out. But by no means that is obvious.
> And also you did not
> address the other objection raised by me.
>
>
> >So we now know that VishhNu is not Brahman, for it
> is from VishhNu that
> >Rudra gains his strength, and nothing gains
> anything from Brahman :-)
>
> I think you have just made this statement to inject
> a sense of humour.
> Nowhere is it stated in the sruti that Vishnu gains
> his power from Rudra.
> The other objection that there is no gaining or
> losing of anything for
> Brahman has not even been addressed.
>
>
> >We can discuss academically, but most of my other
> objections have not been
> >answered to from the previous post, and since
> circular arguments are
> >tiring, I will now sign off.
>
> All objections have been answered. The svetasvatara
> indicates similarity of
> rudra with praajna and not turiya. This is not a
> circular statement.
>
> If the rudra in Sv U is indeed rudra of RV, then it
> is a contradiction as
> the rudra of RV *derives* his power from Vishnu.
> Also it is devi that is the
> source of rudra's power. This is not a circular
> statement.
>
> There is a new argument that I advance here.
> Immediately after the rudra
> verses, the Sv U also says  -
>
> Higher than this is Brahman, the supreme, the
> infinite,....
>
> The *this* should rudra only especially if it is the
> rudra of the rigveda.
> There is something higher than this rudra. This
> interpretation can also
> prevents contradiction between RV and SvU. Thus the
> inner Self and other
> words apply to Brahman only and to none else. This
> is not a circular
> statement.
>
>
> >but most of my other objections have not been
> >answered to from the previous post, and since
> circular arguments are
> >tiring, I will now sign off.
>
> Good, if you find that all arguments are circular,
> then you are free to
> refrain from replying. I never insist on a reply.
> Anyway, thank you for
> taking your time off.
>
> Best Regards
> Kalyan
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Sankaran Kartik Jayanarayanan
> <kartik at ECE.UTEXAS.EDU>
> >Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by
> Shri Shankara
> ><ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
> >To: ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG
> >Subject: Re: Vishnu and Shiva
> >Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:26:52 -0600
> >
> >On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, kalyan chakravarthy wrote:
> >
> >[..]
> >
> > > >Firstly, there is no contradiction in saying
> that
> > > >rudra gained his strength from himself.
> > >
> > > 1.Such a conclusion being obvious would waste
> the scriptural statement.
> > > There is no need to look at the scriptures to
> know the obvious.
> >
> >So you have no objection.
> >
> >By the same token, the Veda should also not waste
> words by repitition,
> >since there is no need to know something already
> known. But the Veda
> >repeatedly points out that Brahman ought to be
> known.
> >
> > > 2.There is no gaining or losing of anything for
> brahman.
> > >
> >
> >So we now know that VishhNu is not Brahman, for it
> is from VishhNu that
> >Rudra gains his strength, and nothing gains
> anything from Brahman :-)
> >
> >We can discuss academically, but most of my other
> objections have not been
> >answered to from the previous post, and since
> circular arguments are
> >tiring, I will now sign off.
> >
> >-Kartik
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Cricket World Cup 2003- News, Views and Match
> Reports.
> http://server1.msn.co.in/msnspecials/worldcup03/


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

>From  Tue Mar 11 22:50:20 2003
Message-Id: <TUE.11.MAR.2003.225020.0800.>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:50:20 -0800
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: Re: The sources of authority in Advaita Vedanta
In-Reply-To: <20030312010659.55325.qmail at web10002.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-2068555442-1047451820=:53077"

--0-2068555442-1047451820=:53077
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


Pranam to all...
My apologies for the previous email that was accidentally sent (duplicate of Jaldhar Vyas' email without any update).


P.S For all those who believe that this discussion has gone on ad nauseum, I assure you that this is my last on this topic with Jaldhar Vyas. I have neglected my medical studies too much this last week to compose these postings. Jaldhar, if you feel compelled to reply to any of this, please don't hesitate to do so. I will refrain from further comment, not out of disrespect for you, but rather so that the group may proceed with other topics and that I may proceed with my medical studies. However, if you choose to respond, I will read your comments carefully and give them their due consideration.



Jai Sri Krishna,
Sanjay

*****************************************************



 "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM> wrote:

>No this was just an example of people who attach different weights to
>different parts of the canon.

As was reinforced today:

The following 3 prasthanas are accepted by all advaitins:

 1. Sruti (namely the Upanishads)
2. Brahma Sutras
3. Bhagavad Gita



best regards, K Kathirasan

 Please help me understand. If these are the foundation texts, then do they not carry more weight in spiritual debates (of interpretation of Dharma) than those texts not mentioned on the list (e.g., epics, puranas, manusmriti)?


>I'm not discrediting Krishna Bhagawan but neither can I automatically
>accept your account of what he taught as there are many conflicting
>interpretations of what he said. You and I may agree that Krishna
>Bhagawan is a teacher of Advaita Vedanta but a follower of Ramanuja may
>consider him a teacher of vishistadvaita. A follower of Abhinavagupta may
>consider him a Shaiva teacher! At the very least we should suspend
>judgment until we investigate further.

If you cannot accept my account of what He said, I respect your right to your interpretation. For the purposes engaging in an edifying disquisition, then please offer citations for a better account of what Sri Krishna said. As mentioned, I have been quoting Bhagavadgita Bhashya as translated by Dr. A.G. Krishna Warrier, and published by the Sri Ramakrishna Math. If a debate is to educational, the it is not sufficient to say that “I do not accept your account.” I am humbly asking you (when you have time) to provide an account you deem to be more consistent with Advaita Vedanta. My postings refer to specific quotes, and it should not be difficult to find competing interpretations. All I ask is that opposition to my account of what Sri Krishna said be drawn from the Foundation Texts as listed above – I ask for this limitation because I have tried to limit my citations to the Bhagavadgita Bhashya and the Upanishads. I acknowledge I have also referred to Sri Chaitanya and Sri Sathya Sai Baba, and I will address that below. However, for further discussion, since it seems many members of this group do not find these sages’ teachings to be consistent with Advaita Vedanta as defined by this discussion group, I shall refrain from referring to their teachings in support or against any statement.

Is S. Radhakrishnan an acceptable interpreter of Advaita Vedanta? If not, by what authority in the Advaita Vedanta tradition is his commentary and interpretation invalid? If he is an acceptable reference, then I shall refer to his commentaries more often, as I am somewhat familiar with them.


>Chaitanya I definitely discredit as a valid authority. Although he may
>have originally taken sannyasa in an Advaitin order, he became a renegade.
>Today his followers are the biggest opponents of Advaita Vedanta.

I just explained above that henceforth I shall refrain from citing sources not consistent with this group’s understanding of Advaita Vedanta to justify my statements. However, I do reserve the right (so long as no one has any objection) to contribute their comments occasionally to offer a different perspective on topics of dharma, moksha, etc. If that is “inappropriate” by the “editorial administrators” of this discussion group, I shall refrain from that also. However, then I ask all members that they refrain from posting anything outside the accepted list of Advaita Vedanta authorities (is there such a list to be provided?).


As for Sri Chaitanya, I encourage each of us to please not throw out the baby with the bathwater, or to not confuse the message with the messenger. While ISKCON may have “claimed” Sri Chaitanya as one of their own, Sri Chaitanya himself predates ISKCON and should not be held accountable for the (mis)interpretations of Vaishnavism that ISKCON has practiced. If one wishes to discredit a sage or a saint, please refer specifically to that part of his/her teachings that are inconsistent with Advaita Vedanta. The story I sent about Sri Chaitanya and the outcaste was not from ISKCON, it was from Sri Sathya Sai Speaks (a collection of Sai Baba’s speeches). A similar story about Adi Shankaracharya and the chandala (who was actually Shiva), in detail, was sent to me by Ken Knight. The conclusions one may draw from such stories are indeed different. If you disagree with my conclusion, and if indeed I am wrong, then please educate me by referring to the appropriate interpretation (not in your own paraphrased words, but with citation so that I may become more familiar with the sources you deem valid, and can then present my perspective more thoroughly with that in mind).


>Shankaracharya, I obviously don't discredit. But I submit to you your
>estimate of the reforms he made is wrong.

This is a significant difference in style between the way you present your ideas and the way I present mine. In that posting to which you refer, I did say that Sri Krishna and Adi Shankaracharya can be considered reformers, if one takes the perspective that the Vedic traditions were being practiced in a way that needed to be corrected. Just as one concrete example, prior to Sri Krishna, women and non-dvijas were not only prohibited from learning the Vedas, they were ineligible for moksha and jivanmukti. This social prohibition was practiced by many religious groups (the Vedic-based, the Buddhist, the Jain, and some of the shramana sects). I am not saying that it was universally practiced, but rather that there was a general sentiment amongst the religions at that time that women and non-dvijas were not eligible to study the Vedas, nor were they eligible for moksha or jivanmukti.  I have read scholarly articles (published in Indology texts) that support this assessment. Sri Krishna was a ‘reformist” in that He said that not just moksha, but in fact jivanmukti, was available to all who practiced (in the proper sequence) karmayoga, jnanayoga, and bhakitiyoga. It is in this context that I used the word “reformer” I have similar stories for Adi Shankaracharya, but they are not readily at my disposal.


However, my main point of this is that I offered another view, and you say “your estimate of the reforms he made is wrong”. The use of the word “wrong” is very pedantic. You are most certainly entitled to your interpretation. I can back up my view through example and reference (though I don’t have the time to research the article(s) that portrayed Adi Shankaracharya as a reformer). All I ask, is that if you disagree with my interpretation, then educate me with citation and reference. Simply stating that you think it is wrong does not advance learning on either of our parts. If I am wrong, teach me by explanation and citation. If you are wrong, then you might learn something also be trying to defend a statement that might be indefensible.


>The Upanishads have the same issue as Krishna Bhagawan. There are
>conflicting opinions and to assume they teach Advaita Vedanta while
>alright with me is putting the cart before the horse if we are looking a
>them in a critical way.
>

Understood. But as mentioned above, although it is putting the cart before the horse, are they not part of the Foundation Texts (listed above)? So, are not citations from them valid in support of or against statements on dharma and moksha?

>> This whole discussion
>> began with access to the Vedas for Shudras (i.e., my involvement in the
>> discussion). For thousands of years sages have argued against limiting
>> Vedic knowledge only to the dvijas.

>No they have argued for limiting knowledge of the *Vedas* to Dvijas. But
>Vedic knowledge is more than that. If that is all we are arguing about
>then we have no argument.

Yes, sorry for my carelessness in referring to previous part of the discussion. It was about limiting access to the “Vedas”. Actually, I’m not sure if we are in agreement on that. My assertion is that access to the Vedas should not be limited to the dvijas. If one believes that they should be limited to the dvijas, then please do so by citation from the Foundation Texts. If one is going to cite the epics, shastras, Puranas, etc., then my counter argument is that each of us has already violated the some statement shastras at some point or another (especially if we live overseas, maintain vegetarianism as Brahmins but eat in kitchens that allow cooking of meat, etc.) Furthermore, the Vedas were “given” to the European translators by the help of pundits throughout India. It is through the help of the pundits that the Europeans transcribed and translated the Vedas (please this is not about the integrity of their translations, but about access to the Vedas being limited to the dvijas). So, if the pundits themselves participated in this process, in contradiction to shastraic injunction, why are we debating about whether or not Shudras should have access to the Vedas? Or are we to dismiss the whole lot of them (the pundits) for betraying our tradition?


>> Are they all vagaries of their time
>> to be discredited? In your own example below, Tulsidas translated the
>> Ramayana from Sanskrit to a vernacular language so that all may have
>> access to it, despite the strong disproval expressed by his fellow
>> Brahmins.
>
>Well the Ramayana is not part of the Vedas so that example is not relevant
>to the question of access to the Vedas.

Once again, please try and read the spirit of the message and not the letter of the message. Agreed, the Ramayana(s) are not part of the Vedas. It is still relevant to the discussion as follows: If shastraic injunction is the justification to prohibit Shudras from access to the Vedas, then shastraic injunction must be universally practiced. If it is not universally practiced, then it further lends to the interpretation that Brahmins (e.g., Tulsidas) have broken the tradition if the Brahmins  and given access to the Sanskrit texts to the common people. Why did other Brahmin  not want Tulsidas to translate the Ramayana from Sanskrit into the vernacular (I intentionally avoid the word Hindi here because Tulsidas translated it into what the precursor to Hindi, Hindwi I believe it was called)? The dvijas were generally well versed in Sanskrit enough to read the Sanskrit scriptures. Incidentally, Tulsidas did not just “translate” the Ramayana, but the Ramcharitmanas differs from the critical edition of Valmiki Ramayana in content also. (Lest you say this is a wrong interpretation, I refer you to the article “Many Ramayanas” which you should be able to find in any university library equipped with Indology sources). My point is that Tulsidas broke from the Bramanical tradition to give access to the Ramayana to the common people. Was Tulsidas violating Shastras? I do not know. If anyone has reference to a Shastra that states the epics ought to only be taught in Sanskrit (or anything similar to that), please do share. What I interpret from that story is that Tulsidas, a revered saint in Indian history, broke from tradition. So, why cannot we also break from tradition and disregard the limitation of teaching of the Vedas only to the dvijas? Or is Tulsidas also not accepted in Advaita Vedanta tradition?


>> This is the point that I am repeatedly making: that despite
>> shastraic statements for or against certain cultural practices, sages,
>> saints, rishis, etc. have acted contrary to the shastras, and as such
>> we should not take the shastraic injunctions so literally in our time.
>> Even in the Mahabharata, the Pandavas violated the established rules of
>> battle so that they may be victorious. Shastraic statements are guides
>> for our social conduct: nothing more, and nothing less.
>
>
>So then I ask you if the rules of the shastras are only a guideline, why
>did Tulsidasji not translate the Vedas themselves into Hindi? Why didn't
>anyone else? The very reason we are having this conversation is that
>there are many people, including myself, who do not see the dictates of
>our ancestors (which includes Shruti, Smrti, and Shistachara as mentioned
>above) as mere suggestions but a way of life. Further I argue that this
>is the view of the majority and it is those who hold minority view who
>have the onus of explaining themselves.



One explanation for this may be that in the Vedas, the mantra is very important. One cannot translate a “mantra” into another language and still retain its power. In the Vedas, the mantra and the sound are of paramount importance. In the epics, the narration serves to be the means of edifying the masses. Children start by reading comic book stories of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata in their local languages. The narrative serves to elucidate dharma. In the Vedas, the precise recitation of the mantra and the proper practice of the yajna are very important, and hence do not lend themselves to translation as easily (if at all).


You say that “this is the view of the majority”. Majority of whom? I just came across a dialogue between Sri Rama and his guru Vasishta. Sri Rama asked his guru if dharma was like a stone – unchanging. Vasishta replied, that no, dharma changes with the times.


I do not know if the above story appears in the critical edition of Valmiki’s Ramayana or if in another recension. When I find the exact citation, I will provide it for you and the group. I am fully admitting that I contribute the above story without any citation to provide just yet (citation forthcoming, I promise). I do submit the story, however, to illustrate that your view that “many people do not see the dictates of our ancestors as mere suggestions but a way of life”… I submit this story to suggest that my view is more common than you may be aware. The notion of a static dharma, in fact, needs defending, as it has not been universally practiced in India through the last several thousand years.


>Yes! Precisely. Historical practice trumps any book. (consider until
>recently the vast majority of Indians have been illiterate.) When I talk
>about my religion I'm not just talking about some theoretical concept but
>the actual practices of my ancestors. To understand caste why do you need
>to look in the Gita? Ask your own Grandfather. See what his Grandfather
>did and his and his and...

I did ask my grandfather when he was alive. He was not a pundit, but nevertheless, very well-read in our scriptures and was able to hold his own ground in discussions with pundits. It may interest you to know that our last name “Verma” is not our real name. After partition, when we moved from Multan to Meerut, Dadaji changed our family name to “Verma” to obscure caste identity. He taught strongly against caste distinctions, and his servants in his house were treated with much respect and dignity. He was prepared to teach Sanatana Dharma (as he understood it) to anyone who would listen, whether it be a servant, a niece or nephew, or the Jehovas Witness missionary who came to our door in Los Angeles and was greeted by Dadaji! J He was the one who first taught me the Gayatri Mantra (and later, without knowing that my grandfather gave this to me) our family guru also gave me the Gayatri Mantra as my mantra. In our family, as taught by Dadaji, caste distinction (for the purpose of access to the Vedas) was strictly prohibited.


I study medicine in India now, though having spent 29 years of my life in the USA. I recently spoke to one of my classmates whose family is associated with an ashram in Andhra Pradesh. My friend, Aruna, is a S. Indian Brahmin. However, in her ashram, the guru forbids making any caste distinctions, even with people assigned to perform menial labor.

I have some friends here from Kerala and Gujurat and various other parts of India. They too say that they do not practice any caste distinctions in terms of access to scripture.


In all the above examples, what is practiced (in terms of caste) is that the elders of their respective communities strongly discourage marrying outside their “communities”. But the emphasis is on “community” not the 4-fold caste of dvijas and shudras.


>I'm not talking about a random man in the street either. I'm talking
>about *every* man on *every* street. From Kashmir to Kanyakumari from the
>21th century BC to the 21st century AD Indians have understood caste to be
>based on birth. If you are reading otherwise from the Gita there are only
>two conclusions:
>1. Throughout history all Hindus everywhere have misunderstood the Gita.
>2. The Gita means something other than you think it does.
>
>I'm sure you'll agree the first choice is simply absurd.



Wow what a broad, blanket statement!!! “Every man on every street”… “Indians have understood caste to be based on birth.” When was the last time you lived in India? In the three years that I have been here studying medicine, most of my classmates assert over and over again that they do not practice any “caste” in terms of occupation or access to scripture, and certainly not based on birth. The only practice is of parents wanting children to marry within the same community. This emphasis is made more because of common language, common food, and common customs, not on any caste assignment by birth.



You give only two options above. If you imply (as you do by eliminating the 1st choice) that I am misreading the Gita, then I challenge you to provide citations from the Foundation Texts that say that caste is determined by birth (i.e., family lineage) and not by inner nature (as I cited from the Upanishads).



I give a 3rd option: you are misreading the Gita and the Upanishads. How can I say so with such confidence? When I have time I will find the exact citation, but in the Upanishads (which in your own estimation is a shruti text, whereas the Gita is a smriti text) there clearly is a story of a boy who is the son of a prostitute, and yet because of his honesty and integrity, his guru deems him a Brahmin and accepts him for teaching. Furthermore, Vishwamitra is renowned for having become a Brahmin from a Kshatriya in one lifetime. Determined by birth or determined by his intense tapasya? Was Prahlada born into a Brahmin family? Was not Sri Krishna born in a family of cowherds, and his uncle a Rakshasa?



Sri Krishna does say that caste is determined by birth, but not by birth into a particular family. He refers to the gunas, and svabhava. One is born into one’s caste as determined by one’s previous life and the inner nature developed thus far.


If you think that my reading of the Gita and the Upanishads is wrong, then I invite you to provide citations to disprove me. Then we will have a rational discussion. However, statements such as “every man on every street” are but heresay without any statistical support (i.e., no public opinion survey to back up such a claim). If you wish to assert that most Indians believe that caste is determined by birth, then that is a different situation. However, most Indians also don’t accept the Advaitc notion of Atma-Parmatma being nondualistic (I have had many discussions on this with classmates and distant relatives – for them Atman and Parmatma are distinct and separate). So, what do we gain by referring to public opinion?


>My first and foremost guides to Dharma have been my parents and
>Grandparents. Whenever we have some family celebration, the first person
>we consult is my Grandmother. Despite the fact she has never learnt
>Sanskrit beyond a few shlokas, by virtue of having seen many such
>celebrations and rembering how her grandmother used to do things, she is
>an authority. Next is my Guruji though I've lost contact with him now he
>has taken sannyasa. But he taught me much of my outlook on how to
>approach the shastras. Next is the priest of our local mandir who is
>actually a Vaishnava. But he is very learned and I often ask his advice
>on aspects of my studies which are unclear. Next is the pious members of
>my community. In particular my daughters babysitter who is not a
>Brahmana, not an Advaitin and doesn't have much formal education even in
>Gujarati but is simply amazing in the way she combines the love of God
>with the bustle of daily life. I consider her and a few others as
>authorities in vinaya (conduct.)

Thank you for sharing such personal information about your spiritual teachers. It is refreshing to read that you consider even non-Advaitins as your “guides”. So, if you can use as your “guides” a Vaishnava priest, and a beautiful woman who “combines the love of God with the bustle of daily life,” so too I refer to my spiritual community of my Dadaji, my parents (especially my mother to exemplifies forbearance and bhakti better than any other one I know), Sri Sathya Sai Baba, and my Sanskrit professors at UC Berkeley to help me put into context statements in the Gita and Upanishads on such topics as dharma and moksha. In my community of elders and spiritual teachers, caste as strictly assigned by birth into a family (i.e., family lineage) is not practiced. Furthermore, the emphasis is more on meditation, satsang, social service, and cultivating one’s own divinity (especially through practice of daya) than on interpreting shastraic social conduct.


>> And if two
>> groups of “scholars, acharyas, or elders” disagree, does not one then go
>> directly to the Shruti texts?
>
>...and Smrti and Shistachara. Yes.

Glad to know that we are in agreement! J

>
>Well I already answered you on several of these. My mother is a follower
>of Satya Sai Baba, I know many Sai devotees and I've even hosted their
>bhajans in my place. So I am aware of his good qualities. But I must
>say he is absolutely not a reliable guide to Advaita Vedanta. These
>Babajis come from a whole different social and intellectual stratum from
>the Sanskrit authors we talk about here.

And hence the source of our disagreement. For you he is not a reliable guide to Advaita Vedanta, and for me is the most reliable living guide on Advaita Vedanta. He is my living guru. But my real guru is Sri Krishna Himself, and I have been blessed to have been granted His vision twice in my life: once when I was 6 years old, I beheld him in my living room in NYC. My dad had been trying to teach us the Bhagavad Gita, and my sister and I were very afraid of not comprehending what we were reading, often crying in shame or just crying out of fear of Dad’s scolding. I know I was not hallucinating because 15 years after that vision, my sister and I spoke of it and both recalled the exact same posture and description of Sri Krishna in our living room


My second vision of Sri Krishna was a few years ago during meditation. Throughout my childhood, I had been praying for the blessing of seeing Sri Krishna as Arjuna did on the battlefield. So, a couple of years ago I had been suffering from a chronic illness (lasted almost 2 years). Laboratory tests confirm that I was afflicted with a viral illness and that the possible complication of chronic fatigue syndrome was now my plight. I was very disheartened, as this was 1st year medical school. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome leaves one deeply fatigued and lacking in concentration – not a good place to be when one has to memorize vast quantities of information! As I sat down for meditation that day, a wave of energy rose up from the base of my spine, and I was able to sit upright (due to fatigue I had been using a back support to sit up straight). In my vision during meditation, I was sitting on the chariot (though perhaps only 1/20th the size) and listening to Sri Krishna and Arjuna in dialogue. I could hear the hooves of the horses and the trembling of the ground. Sri Krishna at one point in the vision picked me up as a mother cradles a child (I was that small in comparison to His size), and said to me lovingly, “are pagle, kyoon ghabararaha hai. Mai tera sahara hoon”. [Oh fool, why are you scared, I am your refuge]. Later in the vision, I was sitting before ShivJi. He towered above me, perhaps 30 feet tall, and I was trembling, in awe of His immense tapasya (he was sitting in meditating pose). Sri Lakshmi then came to me and patted me on the back, reassuring me that ShivJI was now my next guru.


How do I know this was not mere daydreaming? Since that day, I have not suffered from any symptoms of chronic fatigue syndrome, and in fact have had occasional, intense bursts of clarity, energy, and concentration. I only wish I could sustain that clarity and energy more consistently. Alas, but that is my personal challenge.


Furthermore, the reason I don’t place too much credence in living Shankaracharya’s (as opposed to Adi Shankaracharya) is the following: I have heard many encounters of friends of mine who have tried to see a living Shankaracharya in S. India, and the following is just one example.


My friend Aruna, to whom I referred above, is part of an Ashram in Andhra Pradesh. They held a spiritual conference, and the nearby Shankaracharya also attended. While most of the religious gurus were paid respect by touching their feet and placing garlands on them, such was not so with the Shankaracharya. The explanation given was that if one touches the Shankaracharya he must wash himself from 11 wells for a period of over a week (if the offender was a man) and about a full year (if the offender were a woman) to cleanse himself of the impurity incurred by someone touching him.


I also have other stories, but that is not the point. If these stories seem contrary to the knowledge and experience of any Advaitin on this discussion group, please do clarify for me. Are such notions of purity and bathing after being touched by an impure person… Are such notions practiced by Shankaracharyas who are living today? If members of this group are disciples of living Shankaracharyas, then I sincerely apologize if my statements above are received disrespectfully. I offer these illustrations to demonstrate why I do not accept such teachings – they are in direct contradiction to the teachings of my living guru, my elders, and my readings of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita.

>
>> On this very list it was
>> stated as “FACT” that a Brahmin who does not live a life of studying and
>> teaching is just as low as a Shudra.
>
>Is comparable to a Shudra but is not actually a Shudra. And I don't
>believe "low" entered into it. A shudra who fulfills his Dharma is just
>as "high" if not "higher"

Thank you for correcting me. I should not have used the word “low”.

>
>> If you are placing such importance on family tradition now, then you are
>> providing the very arguments with which I began. It doesn’t matter what
>> the shastras say regarding caste distinction. If a particular family or
>> community practices no such distinction, then that should suffice.
>
>But the thing is there is no such community. This is a matter of
>historical record.

I have above given examples of communities where I have directly experienced the prohibition of practicing caste. My problem again is the tone of your disagreement. “There is no such community. This is a matter of historical record.” This pedantic way of writing assumes that you know all the communities in India. I have encountered communities where such caste distinctions are not practiced. If you don’t accept something I say, and it is outside of your experience, then admit that you have not heard that before, and ask for examples. Or provide citations or research proving that no such community exists.


>
>Yet it still continues to this day and is accepted by the vast majority.
>So either the sages were totally ineffectual in their challenge or you
>misunderstand what they are saying.

You really like placing options of “either this or that”. Logically, there is at least one more credible  possibility: that due to the deeply ingrained cultural practices, the sages were unable to lift the people from their nescience for much time, and that the practices continue to fall into nescience after the sage left the material world. Hence the need for “yada yada hi dharmasya…”


>> if you would in advance provide members with a list of valid sources of
>> authority when engaging in a debate.
>
>There is much literature in the Advaita tradition on pramanavada or
>epistemology. The Vedantaparibhasha is one accessible source. Also
>Advaitins take much of their exegetical theory from the Bhatta Mimamsakas
>so you can take a look at some of their writings.



Thank you for providing some concrete references. I am much obliged.



>> Well, some acharyas reject this view, and others do not. Maharishi
>> Mahesh, student of the Shankaracharya of one of the Northern Maths,
>
>The transcendental meditation guy? He may have started in the Shankaran
>tradition but he broke from it. His opinion is not valid on the subject
>of Advaita Vedanta. In fact with his "yogic flying" stunts etc. I
>consider him a charlatan whose views are good for nothing.

While I do not use Maharishi Mahesh’s teachings to inform me about Vedanta, I merely served him as an example of dissenting opinion to your statement (somehow deleted in your response to my email) that rishis reject the view that the Upanishads and/or Vedas are incomprehensible. Again, I ask you, on what grounds do you discredit Maharishi Mahesh? Because of “flying yogis”? Here in Manipal, TM is taught, and sponsored by the college. Some of the students who have taken the advanced course (including a friend of mine) have informed me that they were able to levitate for just a brief moment. Until I witness it myself, I cannot affirm or deny such claims. However, I ask, on what grounds do you discredit Maharishi Mahesh?


>> I used the word “paradox” in the above statement to which you objected.
>> If you look at the word paradox, it literally means “a seemingly
>> self-contradictory statement that still makes sense”.
>
>As long as you use the word "seemingly" (which was missing from your
>previous post) then I agree with you. The reason I brought this up was

I do not need to use the word “seemingly” in my original statement. It is not “missing”. I ask that you read carefully before disagreeing. I used the word “paradox”, which by definition is “a seemingly self-contradictory statement that still makes sense.” I do understand the difference between an overt contradiction and a paradox. I ask again that you read carefully before offering your dissent. This seems to be at least partly contributing to our disagreements.


>> I am not talking about any mysterious thing. I am observing that in
>> practice, through the centuries, more sages demonstrate their spiritual
>> authority by commenting on the Gita than any other single text. Is this
>> not so?
>
>No. Historically to make your mark you had to write a Brahmasutra
>commentary. for instance Chaitanya didn't so in the end his 18th century
>follower Baladeva Vidyabhushana had to write one for the Gaudiya movement
>to be taken seriously by the intellectual public of the day.

Thank you for clarifying.

>>
>> Are not Sri Krishna and Adi Shankaracharya elevating the Gita to a high
>> level?
>
>Yes certainly. But only the Gita? Shankaracharya quotes other sections
>of the Mahabharata and Puranas also. I don't see any sign that the Gita
>is given special treatment. True he wrote a commentary on it but he also
>wrote one on Vishnu Sahasranama which is part of the Mahabharata, Lalita
>trishati which is part of Brahmanda Purana etc.
>

Yes, I refer to the Gita getting special treatment with the following:

1)       The Gita is on the list of Foundation Texts. The MB and the Puranas and others listed above are not.

2)       In the Bhaja Govindam, the Gita is mentioned (twice) as means for salvation, not MB, not the epics, not any other specific text by name.

If the above two examples do not illustrate the special place that the Gita has in the Advaita tradition as you know it, please explain.


>
>Well I apologize if it came across as an insult as that was definitely not
>the intention. It's just a statement like "I don't know what weight the
>Brahmasutras has in the tradition" is astounding to anyone with more than
>a passing acquaintance with Vedantic thought.

Thanks for the clarification. I am aware that the Brahmasutras are very important. I was in a hurry and merely trying to say that I have much more “evidence” to support the special place of the Gita than I do of the Brahmasutra. It would have been better if I had said, “I do know the Brahmasutra has much weight in the Advaita tradition, but I do not have any references to prove it, and thus it is better that I not comment on the degree to which it is important.”


>Again, I'm sorry if that's how it looks as it was not how I meant it.
>But the bottom line is that I think you are wrong on many counts. And I
>think the reason you are wrong is because your views are based on wrong
>assumptions and a lack of context. I'll strive to say this nicely but
>there you are.

If you think that I am “wrong” on many accounts, I have given ample opportunity in this posting alone for you to provide citation or reference to educate me. However, there are times that you say I’m “wrong”, when in fact my experience in India right now supports my view. You say my comments are based on wrong assumptions and lack of context. I still maintain that my context is different than yours, but not wrong. Almost everything I say which you found wrong, can be supported by writings of Sri Sathya Sai Baba, but you have already discredited him as a valid source of authority in these discussions.  So, that doesn’t leave us with much room for dialogue, let alone dialectic, does it?


>> To date, you have yet to quote the Vedas or the Upanishads or
>> the Gita to counter any of my statements.
>
>It should be clear by now that I regard this argument as a straw man.



Straw man or not… I invite you to disprove my comments based on references to the very texts this group considers prasthana in Advaita (Upanishads, Brahmasutra, and Bhagavad-Gita). If you cannot cite commentators in the Advaita tradition on these texts who disagree with my comments, then basically we’re arguing about whose guru is a better interpreter of Advaita Vedanta – and that is a debate I wish not to engage in.




Om Shanti Shanti Shanti




_______________________________________

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

_______________________________________


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
--0-2068555442-1047451820=:53077
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<P>Pranam to all...
<P>My apologies for the previous email that was accidentally sent (duplicate of Jaldhar Vyas' email without any update).
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT> </P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>P.S For all those who believe that this discussion has gone on ad nauseum, I assure you that this is my last on this topic with Jaldhar Vyas. I have neglected my medical studies too much this last week to compose these postings. Jaldhar, if you feel compelled to reply to any of this, please don't hesitate to do so. I will refrain from further comment, not out of disrespect for you, but rather so that the group may proceed with other topics and that I may proceed with my medical studies. However, if you choose to respond, I will read your comments carefully and give them their due consideration.</FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT> </P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Jai Sri Krishna,<BR>Sanjay</FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">***************************************************** </P>
<P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><?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"> <B><I>"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM></I></B> wrote: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">>No this was just an example of people who attach different weights to<BR>>different parts of the canon.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">As was reinforced today:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><TT><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The following 3 prasthanas are accepted by all </SPAN></I></B></TT><TT><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">advaitins:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></I></B></TT></PRE><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><TT><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> </SPAN></I></B></TT><TT><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">1. Sruti (namely the Upanishads)<BR></SPAN></I></B></TT><TT><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">2. Brahma Sutras<BR></SPAN></I></B></TT><TT><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">3. Bhagavad Gita<o:p></o:p></SPAN></I></B></TT></PRE><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><TT><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></I></B></TT></PRE><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in"><TT><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">best regards, K Kathirasan</SPAN></I></B></TT><TT><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></TT></PRE>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Courier New'"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Courier New'"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">Please help me understand. If these are the foundation texts, then do they not carry more weight in spiritual debates (of interpretation of Dharma) than those texts not mentioned on the list (e.g., epics, puranas, manusmriti)? <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoBlockText style="MARGIN: auto 0.5in auto 3.75pt"><BR>>I'm not discrediting Krishna Bhagawan but neither can I automatically<BR>>accept your account of what he taught as there are many conflicting<BR>>interpretations of what he said. You and I may agree that Krishna<BR>>Bhagawan is a teacher of Advaita Vedanta but a follower of Ramanuja may<BR>>consider him a teacher of vishistadvaita. A follower of Abhinavagupta may<BR>>consider him a Shaiva teacher! At the very least we should suspend<BR>>judgment until we investigate further.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>If you cannot accept my account of what He said, I respect your right to your interpretation. For the purposes engaging in an edifying disquisition, then please offer citations for a better account of what Sri Krishna said. As mentioned, I have been quoting <I>Bhagavadgita Bhashya</I> as translated by Dr. A.G. Krishna Warrier, and published by the Sri Ramakrishna Math. If a debate is to educational, the it is not sufficient to say that “I do not accept your account.” I am humbly asking you (when you have time) to provide an account you deem to be more consistent with Advaita Vedanta. My postings refer to specific quotes, and it should not be difficult to find competing interpretations. All I ask is that opposition to my account of what Sri Krishna said be drawn from the Foundation Texts as listed above – I ask for this limitation because I have tried to limit my citations to the <I>Bhagavadgita Bhashya</I></SPAN><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> and the Upanishads. I acknowledge I have also referred to Sri Chaitanya and Sri Sathya Sai Baba, and I will address that below. However, for further discussion, since it seems many members of this group do not find these sages’ teachings to be consistent with Advaita Vedanta as defined by this discussion group, I shall refrain from referring to their teachings in support or against any statement. </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Is S. Radhakrishnan an acceptable interpreter of Advaita Vedanta? If not, by what authority in the Advaita Vedanta tradition is his commentary and interpretation invalid? If he is an acceptable reference, then I shall refer to his commentaries more often, as I am somewhat familiar with them.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>Chaitanya I definitely discredit as a valid authority. Although he may<BR>>have originally taken sannyasa in an Advaitin order, he became a renegade.<BR>>Today his followers are the biggest opponents of Advaita Vedanta.<BR><BR>I just explained above that henceforth I shall refrain from citing sources not consistent with this group’s understanding of Advaita Vedanta to justify my statements. However, I do reserve the right (so long as no one has any objection) to contribute their comments occasionally to offer a different perspective on topics of dharma, moksha, etc. If that is “inappropriate” by the “editorial administrators” of this discussion group, I shall refrain from that also. However, then I ask all members that they refrain from posting anything outside the accepted list of Advaita Vedanta authorities (is there such a list to be provided?).<BR><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">As for Sri Chaitanya, I encourage each of us to please not throw out the baby with the bathwater, or to not confuse the message with the messenger. While ISKCON may have “claimed” Sri Chaitanya as one of their own, Sri Chaitanya himself predates ISKCON and should not be held accountable for the (mis)interpretations of Vaishnavism that ISKCON has practiced. If one wishes to discredit a sage or a saint, please refer specifically to that part of his/her teachings that are inconsistent with Advaita Vedanta. The story I sent about Sri Chaitanya and the outcaste was not from ISKCON, it was from <U>Sri Sathya Sai Speaks</U> (a collection of Sai Baba’s speeches). A similar story about Adi Shankaracharya and the chandala (who was actually Shiva), in detail, was sent to me by Ken Knight. The conclusions one may draw from such stories are indeed different. If you disagree with my conclusion, and <U>if indeed I am wrong, then please educate me by referring to the appropriate interpretation</U> (not in your own paraphrased words, but with citation so that I may become more familiar with the sources you deem valid, and can then present my perspective more thoroughly with that in mind). <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>Shankaracharya, I obviously don't discredit. But I submit to you your<BR>>estimate of the reforms he made is wrong.<BR><BR>This is a significant difference in style between the way you present your ideas and the way I present mine. In that posting to which you refer, I did say that Sri Krishna and Adi Shankaracharya can be considered reformers, if one takes the perspective that the Vedic traditions were being practiced in a way that needed to be corrected. Just as one concrete example, prior to Sri Krishna, women and non-dvijas were not only prohibited from learning the Vedas, they were ineligible for moksha and jivanmukti. This social prohibition was practiced by many religious groups (the Vedic-based, the Buddhist, the Jain, and some of the shramana sects). I am not saying that it was universally practiced, but rather that there was a general sentiment amongst the religions at that time that women and non-dvijas were not eligible to study the Vedas, nor were they eligible for moksha or jivanmukti.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>I have read scholarly articles (published in Indology texts) that support this assessment. Sri Krishna was a ‘reformist” in that He said that not just moksha, but in fact jivanmukti, was available to all who practiced (in the proper sequence) karmayoga, jnanayoga, and bhakitiyoga. It is in this context that I used the word “reformer” I have similar stories for Adi Shankaracharya, but they are not readily at my disposal.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>However, my main point of this is that I offered another view, and you say “your estimate of the reforms he made is wrong”. The use of the word “wrong” is very pedantic. You are most certainly entitled to your interpretation. I can back up my view through example and reference (though I don’t have the time to research the article(s) that portrayed Adi Shankaracharya as a reformer). All I ask, is that if you disagree with my interpretation, then educate me with citation and reference. Simply stating that you think it is wrong does not advance learning on either of our parts. If I am wrong, teach me by explanation and citation. If you are wrong, then you might learn something also be trying to defend a statement that <U>might</U> be indefensible.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>The Upanishads have the same issue as Krishna Bhagawan. There are<BR>>conflicting opinions and to assume they teach Advaita Vedanta while<BR>>alright with me is putting the cart before the horse if we are looking a<BR>>them in a critical way.<BR>><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Understood. But as mentioned above, although it is putting the cart before the horse, are they not part of the Foundation Texts (listed above)? So, are not citations from them valid in support of or against statements on dharma and moksha?<BR><BR>>> This whole discussion<BR>>> began with access to the Vedas for Shudras (i.e., my involvement in the<BR>>> discussion). For thousands of years sages have argued against limiting<BR>>> Vedic knowledge only to the dvijas.<BR><BR>>No they have argued for limiting knowledge of the *Vedas* to Dvijas. But<BR>>Vedic knowledge is more than that. If that is all we are arguing about<BR>>then we have no argument.<BR><BR>Yes, sorry for my carelessness in referring to previous part of the discussion. It was about limiting access to the “Vedas”. Actually, I’m not sure if we are in agreement on that. My assertion is that access to the Vedas should not be limited to the dvijas. If one believes that they should be limited to the dvijas, then please do so by citation from the Foundation Texts. If one is going to cite the epics, shastras, Puranas, etc., then my counter argument is that each of us has already violated the some statement shastras at some point or another (especially if we live overseas, maintain vegetarianism as Brahmins but eat in kitchens that allow cooking of meat, etc.) Furthermore, the Vedas were “given” to the European translators by the help of pundits throughout India. It is through the help of the pundits that the Europeans transcribed and translated the Vedas (please this is not about the integrity of their translations, but about access to the Vedas being limited to the dvijas). So, if the pundits themselves participated in this process, in contradiction to shastraic injunction, why are we debating about whether or not Shudras should have access to the Vedas? Or are we to dismiss the whole lot of them (the pundits) for betraying our tradition?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>> Are they all vagaries of their time<BR>>> to be discredited? In your own example below, Tulsidas translated the<BR>>> Ramayana from Sanskrit to a vernacular language so that all may have<BR>>> access to it, despite the strong disproval expressed by his fellow<BR>>> Brahmins.<BR>><BR>>Well the Ramayana is not part of the Vedas so that example is not relevant<BR>>to the question of access to the Vedas.<BR><BR>Once again, please try and read the spirit of the message and not the letter of the message. Agreed, the Ramayana(s) are not part of the Vedas. It is still relevant to the discussion as follows: If shastraic injunction is the justification to prohibit Shudras from access to the Vedas, then shastraic injunction must be universally practiced. If it is not universally practiced, then it further lends to the interpretation that Brahmins (e.g., Tulsidas) have <I>broken the tradition if the Brahmins </I><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>and given access to the Sanskrit texts to the common people. Why did other Brahmin<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>not want Tulsidas to translate the Ramayana from Sanskrit into the vernacular (I intentionally avoid the word Hindi here because Tulsidas translated it into what the precursor to Hindi, Hindwi I believe it was called)? The dvijas were generally well versed in Sanskrit enough to read the Sanskrit scriptures. Incidentally, Tulsidas did not just “translate” the Ramayana, but the Ramcharitmanas differs from the critical edition of Valmiki Ramayana in content also. (Lest you say this is a wrong interpretation, I refer you to the article “Many Ramayanas” which you should be able to find in any university library equipped with Indology sources). My point is that Tulsidas broke from the Bramanical tradition to give access to the Ramayana to the common people. Was Tulsidas violating Shastras? I do not know. If anyone has reference to a Shastra that states the epics ought to only be taught in Sanskrit (or anything similar to that), please do share. What I interpret from that story is that Tulsidas, a revered saint in Indian history, broke from tradition. So, why cannot we also break from tradition and disregard the limitation of teaching of the Vedas only to the dvijas? Or is Tulsidas also not accepted in Advaita Vedanta tradition?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>> This is the point that I am repeatedly making: that despite<BR>>> shastraic statements for or against certain cultural practices, sages,<BR>>> saints, rishis, etc. have acted contrary to the shastras, and as such<BR>>> we should not take the shastraic injunctions so literally in our time.<BR>>> Even in the Mahabharata, the Pandavas violated the established rules of<BR>>> battle so that they may be victorious. Shastraic statements are guides<BR>>> for our social conduct: nothing more, and nothing less.<BR>><BR>><BR>>So then I ask you if the rules of the shastras are only a guideline, why<BR>>did Tulsidasji not translate the Vedas themselves into Hindi? Why didn't<BR>>anyone else? The very reason we are having this conversation is that<BR>>there are many people, including myself, who do not see the dictates of<BR>>our ancestors (which includes Shruti, Smrti, and Shistachara as mentioned<BR>>above) as mere suggestions but a way of life. Further I argue that this<BR>>is the view of the majority and it is those who hold minority view who<BR>>have the onus of explaining themselves.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">One explanation for this may be that in the Vedas, the mantra is very important. One cannot translate a “mantra” into another language and still retain its power. In the Vedas, the mantra and the sound are of paramount importance. In the epics, the narration serves to be the means of edifying the masses. Children start by reading comic book stories of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata in their local languages. The narrative serves to elucidate dharma. In the Vedas, the precise recitation of the mantra and the proper practice of the yajna are very important, and hence do not lend themselves to translation as easily (if at all).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>You say that “this is the view of the majority”. Majority of whom? I just came across a dialogue between Sri Rama and his guru Vasishta. Sri Rama asked his guru if dharma was like a stone – unchanging. Vasishta replied, that no, dharma changes with the times.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>I do not know if the above story appears in the critical edition of Valmiki’s Ramayana or if in another recension. When I find the exact citation, I will provide it for you and the group. I am fully admitting that I contribute the above story without any citation to provide just yet (citation forthcoming, I promise). I do submit the story, however, to illustrate that your view that “many people do not see the dictates of our ancestors as mere suggestions but a way of life”… I submit this story to suggest that my view is more common than you may be aware. The notion of a static dharma, in fact, needs defending, as it has not been universally practiced in India through the last several thousand years.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>Yes! Precisely. Historical practice trumps any book. (consider until<BR>>recently the vast majority of Indians have been illiterate.) When I talk<BR>>about my religion I'm not just talking about some theoretical concept but<BR>>the actual practices of my ancestors. To understand caste why do you need<BR>>to look in the Gita? Ask your own Grandfather. See what his Grandfather<BR>>did and his and his and...<BR><BR>I did ask my grandfather when he was alive. He was not a pundit, but nevertheless, very well-read in our scriptures and was able to hold his own ground in discussions with pundits. It may interest you to know that our last name “Verma” is not our real name. After partition, when we moved from Multan to Meerut, Dadaji changed our family name to “Verma” to obscure caste identity. He taught strongly against caste distinctions, and his servants in his house were treated with much respect and dignity. He was prepared to teach Sanatana Dharma (as he understood it) to anyone who would listen, whether it be a servant, a niece or nephew, or the Jehovas Witness missionary who came to our door in Los Angeles and was greeted by Dadaji! </SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Wingdings; mso-ascii-font-family: Arial; mso-hansi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Wingdings"><SPAN style="mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Wingdings">J</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> He was the one who first taught me the Gayatri Mantra (and later, without knowing that my grandfather gave this to me) our family guru also gave me the Gayatri Mantra as my mantra. In our family, as taught by Dadaji, caste distinction (for the purpose of access to the Vedas) was strictly prohibited.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>I study medicine in India now, though having spent 29 years of my life in the USA. I recently spoke to one of my classmates whose family is associated with an ashram in Andhra Pradesh. My friend, Aruna, is a S. Indian Brahmin. However, in her ashram, the guru forbids making any caste distinctions, even with people assigned to perform menial labor.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I have some friends here from Kerala and Gujurat and various other parts of India. They too say that they do not practice any caste distinctions in terms of access to scripture.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>In all the above examples, what is practiced (in terms of caste) is that the elders of their respective communities strongly discourage marrying outside their “communities”. But the emphasis is on “community” not the 4-fold caste of dvijas and shudras.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>I'm not talking about a random man in the street either. I'm talking<BR>>about *every* man on *every* street. From Kashmir to Kanyakumari from the<BR>>21th century BC to the 21st century AD Indians have understood caste to be<BR>>based on birth. If you are reading otherwise from the Gita there are only<BR>>two conclusions:<BR>>1. Throughout history all Hindus everywhere have misunderstood the Gita.<BR>>2. The Gita means something other than you think it does.<BR>><BR>>I'm sure you'll agree the first choice is simply absurd.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Wow what a broad, blanket statement!!! “Every man on every street”… “Indians have understood caste to be based on birth.” When was the last time you lived in India? In the three years that I have been here studying medicine, most of my classmates assert over and over again that they do not practice any “caste” in terms of occupation or access to scripture, and certainly not based on birth. The only practice is of parents wanting children to marry within the same community. This emphasis is made more because of common language, common food, and common customs, not on any caste assignment by birth.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">You give only two options above. If you imply (as you do by eliminating the 1<SUP>st</SUP> choice) that I am misreading the Gita, then I challenge you to provide citations from the Foundation Texts that say that caste is determined by birth (i.e., family lineage) and <B>not</B> by inner nature (as I cited from the Upanishads). </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I give a 3<SUP>rd</SUP> option: you are misreading the Gita and the Upanishads. How can I say so with such confidence? When I have time I will find the exact citation, but in the Upanishads (which in your own estimation is a shruti text, whereas the Gita is a smriti text) there clearly is a story of a boy who is the son of a prostitute, and yet because of his honesty and integrity, his guru deems him a Brahmin and accepts him for teaching. Furthermore, Vishwamitra is renowned for having become a Brahmin from a Kshatriya in one lifetime. Determined by birth or determined by his intense tapasya? Was Prahlada born into a Brahmin family? Was not Sri Krishna born in a family of cowherds, and his uncle a Rakshasa? <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Sri Krishna does say that caste is determined by birth, but not by birth into a particular family. He refers to the gunas, and svabhava. One is born into one’s caste as determined by one’s previous life and the inner nature developed thus far.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>If you think that my reading of the Gita and the Upanishads is wrong, then I invite you to provide citations to disprove me. Then we will have a rational discussion. However, statements such as “every man on every street” are but heresay without any statistical support (i.e., no public opinion survey to back up such a claim). If you wish to assert that <U>most</U> Indians believe that caste is determined by birth, then that is a different situation. However, most Indians also don’t accept the Advaitc notion of Atma-Parmatma being nondualistic (I have had many discussions on this with classmates and distant relatives – for them Atman and Parmatma are distinct and separate). So, what do we gain by referring to public opinion?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>My first and foremost guides to Dharma have been my parents and<BR>>Grandparents. Whenever we have some family celebration, the first person<BR>>we consult is my Grandmother. Despite the fact she has never learnt<BR>>Sanskrit beyond a few shlokas, by virtue of having seen many such<BR>>celebrations and rembering how her grandmother used to do things, she is<BR>>an authority. Next is my Guruji though I've lost contact with him now he<BR>>has taken sannyasa. But he taught me much of my outlook on how to<BR>>approach the shastras. Next is the priest of our local mandir who is<BR>>actually a Vaishnava. But he is very learned and I often ask his advice<BR>>on aspects of my studies which are unclear. Next is the pious members of<BR>>my community. In particular my daughters babysitter who is not a<BR>>Brahmana, not an Advaitin and doesn't have much formal education even in<BR>>Gujarati but is simply amazing in the way she combines the love of God<BR>>with the bustle of daily life. I consider her and a few others as<BR>>authorities in vinaya (conduct.)<BR><BR>Thank you for sharing such personal information about your spiritual teachers. It is refreshing to read that you consider even non-Advaitins as your “guides”. So, if you can use as your “guides” a Vaishnava priest, and a beautiful woman who “combines the love of God with the bustle of daily life,” so too I refer to my spiritual community of my Dadaji, my parents (especially my mother to exemplifies forbearance and bhakti better than any other one I know), Sri Sathya Sai Baba, and my Sanskrit professors at UC Berkeley to help me put into context statements in the Gita and Upanishads on such topics as dharma and moksha. In my community of elders and spiritual teachers, <U>caste as strictly assigned by birth into a family</U> (i.e., family lineage) is <U>not practiced</U>. Furthermore, the emphasis is more on meditation, satsang, social service, and cultivating one’s own divinity (especially through practice of daya) than on interpreting shastraic social conduct.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>> And if two<BR>>> groups of “scholars, acharyas, or elders” disagree, does not one then go<BR>>> directly to the Shruti texts?<BR>><BR>>...and Smrti and Shistachara. Yes.<BR><BR>Glad to know that we are in agreement! </SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Wingdings; mso-ascii-font-family: Arial; mso-hansi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Wingdings"><SPAN style="mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: Wingdings">J</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR><BR>><BR>>Well I already answered you on several of these. My mother is a follower<BR>>of Satya Sai Baba, I know many Sai devotees and I've even hosted their<BR>>bhajans in my place. So I am aware of his good qualities. But I must<BR>>say he is absolutely not a reliable guide to Advaita Vedanta. These<BR>>Babajis come from a whole different social and intellectual stratum from<BR>>the Sanskrit authors we talk about here.<BR><BR>And hence the source of our disagreement. For you he is not a reliable guide to Advaita Vedanta, and for me is <U>the</U> most reliable living guide on Advaita Vedanta. He is my living guru. But my real guru is Sri Krishna Himself, and I have been blessed to have been granted His vision twice in my life: once when I was 6 years old, I beheld him in my living room in NYC. My dad had been trying to teach us the Bhagavad Gita, and my sister and I were very afraid of not comprehending what we were reading, often crying in shame or just crying out of fear of Dad’s scolding. I know I was not hallucinating because 15 years after that vision, my sister and I spoke of it and both recalled the exact same posture and description of Sri Krishna in our living room<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>My second vision of Sri Krishna was a few years ago during meditation. Throughout my childhood, I had been praying for the blessing of seeing Sri Krishna as Arjuna did on the battlefield. So, a couple of years ago I had been suffering from a chronic illness (lasted almost 2 years). Laboratory tests confirm that I was afflicted with a viral illness and that the possible complication of chronic fatigue syndrome was now my plight. I was very disheartened, as this was 1<SUP>st</SUP> year medical school. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome leaves one deeply fatigued and lacking in concentration – not a good place to be when one has to memorize vast quantities of information! As I sat down for meditation that day, a wave of energy rose up from the base of my spine, and I was able to sit upright (due to fatigue I had been using a back support to sit up straight). In my vision during meditation, I was sitting on the chariot (though perhaps only 1/20<SUP>th</SUP> the size) and listening to Sri Krishna and Arjuna in dialogue. I could hear the hooves of the horses and the trembling of the ground. Sri Krishna at one point in the vision picked me up as a mother cradles a child (I was that small in comparison to His size), and said to me lovingly, “are pagle, kyoon ghabararaha hai. Mai tera sahara hoon”. [Oh fool, why are you scared, I am your refuge]. Later in the vision, I was sitting before ShivJi. He towered above me, perhaps 30 feet tall, and I was trembling, in awe of His immense tapasya (he was sitting in meditating pose). Sri Lakshmi then came to me and patted me on the back, reassuring me that ShivJI was now my next guru.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>How do I know this was not mere daydreaming? Since that day, I have not suffered from any symptoms of chronic fatigue syndrome, and in fact have had occasional, intense bursts of clarity, energy, and concentration. I only wish I could sustain that clarity and energy more consistently. Alas, but that is my personal challenge.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>Furthermore, the reason I don’t place too much credence in living Shankaracharya’s (as opposed to Adi Shankaracharya) is the following: I have heard many encounters of friends of mine who have tried to see a living Shankaracharya in S. India, and the following is just one example.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>My friend Aruna, to whom I referred above, is part of an Ashram in Andhra Pradesh. They held a spiritual conference, and the nearby Shankaracharya also attended. While most of the religious gurus were paid respect by touching their feet and placing garlands on them, such was not so with the Shankaracharya. The explanation given was that if one touches the Shankaracharya he must wash himself from 11 wells for a period of over a week (if the offender was a man) and about a full year (if the offender were a woman) to cleanse himself of the impurity incurred by someone touching him.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>I also have other stories, but that is not the point. If these stories seem contrary to the knowledge and experience of any Advaitin on this discussion group, please do clarify for me. Are such notions of purity and bathing after being touched by an impure person… Are such notions practiced by Shankaracharyas who are living today? If members of this group are disciples of living Shankaracharyas, then I sincerely apologize if my statements above are received disrespectfully. I offer these illustrations to demonstrate why I do not accept such teachings – they are in direct contradiction to the teachings of my living guru, my elders, and my readings of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">><BR>>> On this very list it was<BR>>> stated as “FACT” that a Brahmin who does not live a life of studying and<BR>>> teaching is just as low as a Shudra.<BR>><BR>>Is comparable to a Shudra but is not actually a Shudra. And I don't<BR>>believe "low" entered into it. A shudra who fulfills his Dharma is just<BR>>as "high" if not "higher"<BR><BR>Thank you for correcting me. I should not have used the word “low”. <BR><BR>><BR>>> If you are placing such importance on family tradition now, then you are<BR>>> providing the very arguments with which I began. It doesn’t matter what<BR>>> the shastras say regarding caste distinction. If a particular family or<BR>>> community practices no such distinction, then that should suffice.<BR>><BR>>But the thing is there is no such community. This is a matter of<BR>>historical record.<BR><BR>I have above given examples of communities where I have directly experienced the prohibition of practicing caste. My problem again is the tone of your disagreement. “There is no such community. This is a matter of historical record.” This pedantic way of writing assumes that you know all the communities in India. I have encountered communities where such caste distinctions are not practiced. If you don’t accept something I say, and it is outside of your experience, then admit that you have not heard that before, and ask for examples. Or provide citations or research proving that no such community exists.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>><BR>>Yet it still continues to this day and is accepted by the vast majority.<BR>>So either the sages were totally ineffectual in their challenge or you<BR>>misunderstand what they are saying.<BR><BR>You really like placing options of “either this or that”. Logically, there is <U>at least one more</U> credible<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>possibility: that due to the deeply ingrained cultural practices, the sages were unable to lift the people from their nescience for much time, and that the practices continue to fall into nescience after the sage left the material world. Hence the need for “yada yada hi dharmasya…”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>> if you would in advance provide members with a list of valid sources of<BR>>> authority when engaging in a debate.<BR>><BR>>There is much literature in the Advaita tradition on pramanavada or<BR>>epistemology. The Vedantaparibhasha is one accessible source. Also<BR>>Advaitins take much of their exegetical theory from the Bhatta Mimamsakas<BR>>so you can take a look at some of their writings.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Thank you for providing some concrete references. I am much obliged.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR><BR>>> Well, some acharyas reject this view, and others do not. Maharishi<BR>>> Mahesh, student of the Shankaracharya of one of the Northern Maths,<BR>><BR>>The transcendental meditation guy? He may have started in the Shankaran<BR>>tradition but he broke from it. His opinion is not valid on the subject<BR>>of Advaita Vedanta. In fact with his "yogic flying" stunts etc. I<BR>>consider him a charlatan whose views are good for nothing.<BR><BR>While I do not use Maharishi Mahesh’s teachings to inform me about Vedanta, I merely served him as an example of dissenting opinion to your statement (somehow deleted in your response to my email) that rishis reject the view that the Upanishads and/or Vedas are incomprehensible. Again, I ask you, on what grounds do you discredit Maharishi Mahesh? Because of “flying yogis”? Here in Manipal, TM is taught, and sponsored by the college. Some of the students who have taken the advanced course (including a friend of mine) have informed me that they were able to levitate for just a brief moment. Until I witness it myself, I cannot affirm or deny such claims. However, I ask, on what grounds do you discredit Maharishi Mahesh?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>> I used the word “paradox” in the above statement to which you objected.<BR>>> If you look at the word paradox, it literally means “a seemingly<BR>>> self-contradictory statement that still makes sense”.<BR>><BR>>As long as you use the word "seemingly" (which was missing from your<BR>>previous post) then I agree with you. The reason I brought this up was<BR><BR>I do not need to use the word “seemingly” in my original statement. It is not “missing”. I ask that you <U>read carefully</U> before disagreeing. I used the word “paradox”, which by definition is “a seemingly self-contradictory statement that still makes sense.” I do understand the difference between an overt contradiction and a paradox. I ask again that you read carefully before offering your dissent. This seems to be at least partly contributing to our disagreements.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>> I am not talking about any mysterious thing. I am observing that in<BR>>> practice, through the centuries, more sages demonstrate their spiritual<BR>>> authority by commenting on the Gita than any other single text. Is this<BR>>> not so?<BR>><BR>>No. Historically to make your mark you had to write a Brahmasutra<BR>>commentary. for instance Chaitanya didn't so in the end his 18th century<BR>>follower Baladeva Vidyabhushana had to write one for the Gaudiya movement<BR>>to be taken seriously by the intellectual public of the day.<BR><BR>Thank you for clarifying.<BR><BR>>><BR>>> Are not Sri Krishna and Adi Shankaracharya elevating the Gita to a high<BR>>> level?<BR>><BR>>Yes certainly. But only the Gita? Shankaracharya quotes other sections<BR>>of the Mahabharata and Puranas also. I don't see any sign that the Gita<BR>>is given special treatment. True he wrote a commentary on it but he also<BR>>wrote one on Vishnu Sahasranama which is part of the Mahabharata, Lalita<BR>>trishati which is part of Brahmanda Purana etc.<BR>><BR><BR>Yes, I refer to the Gita getting special treatment with the following:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 21.75pt; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; tab-stops: list 21.75pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">1)<SPAN style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">       </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The Gita is on the list of Foundation Texts. The MB and the Puranas and others listed above are not.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 21.75pt; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; tab-stops: list 21.75pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">2)<SPAN style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">       </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In the Bhaja Govindam, the Gita is mentioned (twice) as means for salvation, not MB, not the epics, not any other specific text by name.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">If the above two examples do not illustrate the special place that the Gita has in the Advaita tradition as you know it, please explain.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>><BR>>Well I apologize if it came across as an insult as that was definitely not<BR>>the intention. It's just a statement like "I don't know what weight the<BR>>Brahmasutras has in the tradition" is astounding to anyone with more than<BR>>a passing acquaintance with Vedantic thought.<BR><BR>Thanks for the clarification. I am aware that the Brahmasutras are very important. I was in a hurry and merely trying to say that I have much more “evidence” to support the special place of the Gita than I do of the Brahmasutra. It would have been better if I had said, “I do know the Brahmasutra has much weight in the Advaita tradition, but I do not have any references to prove it, and thus it is better that I not comment on the degree to which it is important.”<BR><BR><BR>>Again, I'm sorry if that's how it looks as it was not how I meant it.<BR>>But the bottom line is that I think you are wrong on many counts. And I<BR>>think the reason you are wrong is because your views are based on wrong<BR>>assumptions and a lack of context. I'll strive to say this nicely but<BR>>there you are.<BR><BR>If you think that I am “wrong” on many accounts, I have given ample opportunity in this posting alone for you to provide citation or reference to educate me. However, there are times that you say I’m “wrong”, when in fact my experience in India right now supports my view. You say my comments are based on wrong assumptions and lack of context. I still maintain that my context is different than yours, but not wrong. Almost everything I say which you found wrong, can be supported by writings of Sri Sathya Sai Baba, but you have already discredited him as a valid source of authority in these discussions.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>So, that doesn’t leave us with much room for dialogue, let alone dialectic, does it?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR>>> To date, you have yet to quote the Vedas or the Upanishads or<BR>>> the Gita to counter any of my statements.<BR>><BR>>It should be clear by now that I regard this argument as a straw man.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Straw man or not… I invite you to disprove my comments based on references to the very texts this group considers prasthana in Advaita (Upanishads, Brahmasutra, and Bhagavad-Gita). If you cannot cite commentators in the Advaita tradition <U>on these texts</U> who disagree with my comments, then basically we’re arguing about whose guru is a better interpreter of Advaita Vedanta – and that is a debate I wish not to engage in.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0.5in 0pt 3.75pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><BR></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman">Om Shanti Shanti Shanti</FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </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://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/wh3/prod/">Yahoo! Web Hosting</a> - establish your business online
--0-2068555442-1047451820=:53077--