[Advaita-l] Re: Bakthi

[shankar]

----- Original Message -----
From: <advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
To: <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:30 PM
Subject: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 17, Issue 1


> Send Advaita-l mailing list submissions to
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> advaita-l-owner at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Advaita-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: upanishad mahAvAkya (Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian)
>    2. Re: upanishad mahAvAkya (Sanskrit Beginner)
>    3. RE: namo namah: and some questions (Jaldhar H. Vyas)
>    4. Re: upanishad mahAvAkya (Jaldhar H. Vyas)
>    5. Re: upanishad mahAvAkya (Jaldhar H. Vyas)
>    6. clarification on terminology (Sanskrit Beginner)
>    7. RE: namo namah: and some questions (Sanskrit Beginner)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:29:47 -0700
> From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] upanishad mahAvAkya
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID: <d6ea147d04083113295ed672c8 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> The reference is the "sukarahasyopani"sad, whch has been quoted by
> authors like Vidyaara.nya. The four mahaavaakya-s are merely "one
> sample" each of many advaitic statements from each veda. It just shows
> that all the vedas are unanimous in declaring the ultimate meaning of
> the vedas is advaita. No author says that these are the only advaitic
> statements.
>
> The pa~nciikara.nam also singles out these four statements.
>
> As a side note: personally, I don't understand this obsession with
> post and pre-"sa.mkara advaitins. Should anyone not explain anything
> differently compared to "sa.mkara? Does that make them non-advaitins?
> All advaitins are unanimous in declaring the ultimate unreality of the
> world and the unity of aatman. When it comes to explaining the
> empirical world and why there seems to be a perception of an empirical
> world, there are differences.
>
> A Western education seems to compound the post/pre "sa.mkara muddle.
> It is a fact that the teachers not only teach from bhaa.syas, but also
> from their direct experience of the truth. Not just that, they address
> various types of students. It would be best to leave this post/pre
> debates and get on with the actual stuff. Just my opinion, no offence
> intended. It's nothing new that there are many differences in the way
> advaita is taught. It is a good thing. Citsukha has commented way back
> in the 1200's on this and has also explained why it is so.
>
> Rama
>
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:22:51 +0530, bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
> <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> >
> > praNAms
> > Hare Krishna
> >
> > Kindly clarify whether shankara anywhere in prasthAna traya bhAshya says
> > *only four vAkya-s* from four vEda-s are the mahA vAkya-s?? If yes,
please
> > give me the reference.  If no, then why in advaita we say only four
vAkya-s
> > are upanishad mahAvAkyas??  is it a contribution of post shankara
> > vyAkhyAnakAra-s??
> >
> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> > bhaskar
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 05:34:07 GMT
> From: Sanskrit Beginner <sanskrit_beginner at unlimitedmail.org>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] upanishad mahAvAkya
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID: <200409010534.i815Y436024174 at mail.unlimitedmail.org>
>
> namo namah
>
>  if there are differences in the description of the empirical
> world, then how can the methodology advocated to get out of it
> be similar? Here is what I mean: Advaita Vedanta is sort
> of "THE" way to describe the "real reality" right? Also,
> advaita vedanta says that as mortals we live in "apparent
> reality" - sort of like the movie Matrix. Also, as an overall
> system, it must suggest methodologies and processes for one to
> get oneself "out" of the system of illusions, and be prepared
> to "just BE" right?
>
>  Now, my contention is this: If the description of
> this "apparent reality" is not consistent within the system,
> then the methodology to get oneself out of it will necessarily
> be different as well. For example: for one who is fighting a
> fire, knowing the type of fire is important to know how to put
> it off. Like a fire due to gasoline or chemicals is different
> from just wood buring etc. Saying it depends on the nature of
> the student/listener addresses only part of the problem.
> Every "student" is still a mortal, enjoy happiness, suffers
> pain, and makes mistakes. The description of reality
> and "apparent reality" especially, must address to this common
> problem.
>
>  Quite honestly, I am not sure I even understand one way of
> describing the "apparent reality". I am a beginner, and am
> questioning the assumption I see here that differences are
> acceptable. References to where the "apparent reality" is
> explained or described are welcome.
>
>  Ultimate reality being described in identical terms is
> besides the point for one starting out to understand where
> he/she is and what to do about it. Learning starts from
> understanding the current situation, and working upwards.
> Differences here will only aplify as one proceeds, like the
> bull whip effect.
>
>  Attributing deficiencies to western eduation is unfair - if
> not for that, the large majority of us would still be herding
> sheep and cattle. The rest would be blissfully unaware of
> ground realities, and would have taken shelter under "apparent
> realities". That's the reason why a Buddha came out. The
> problem of population would still be there, and needless to
> say, umemployment would have been worse :)
>
>  if citsukha has explained why it must be so, I'd love learn
> about it and develop a better understanding.
>
> corrections welcome - we are here to learn; no offence is
> intended.
>
> dhanyavaadah:
>
> > As a side note: personally, I don't understand this
> obsession with
> > post and pre-"sa.mkara advaitins. Should anyone not explain
> anything
> > differently compared to "sa.mkara? Does that make them non-
> advaitins?
> > All advaitins are unanimous in declaring the ultimate
> unreality of the
> > world and the unity of aatman. When it comes to explaining
> the
> > empirical world and why there seems to be a perception of an
> empirical
> > world, there are differences.
>
> > A Western education seems to compound the post/pre "sa.mkara
> muddle.
> > It is a fact that the teachers not only teach from
> bhaa.syas, but also
> > from their direct experience of the truth. Not just that,
> they address
> > various types of students. It would be best to leave this
> post/pre
> > debates and get on with the actual stuff. Just my opinion,
> no offence
> > intended. It's nothing new that there are many differences
> in the way
> > advaita is taught. It is a good thing. Citsukha has
> commented way back
> > in the 1200's on this and has also explained why it is so.
>
>
> --------------------------------------
> Message sent from the
> Unlimited Mail Free Services Platform.
> http://www.unlimitedmail.net
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 01:39:54 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> Subject: RE: [Advaita-l] namo namah: and some questions
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID:
> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0409010139140.10462 at diku.intranet.braincell.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Ravisankar S. Mayavaram wrote:
>
> > Unless you are bhagavan (who knows all), you can not say A's bhakti  is
> > better than B's just based what you can observe with your senses. Not
only
> > we can't say that,  it is simply not our business.
> >
>
> But the thing is we do it all the time!  This is Shravana masa so I am
> doing abhisheka to Shiva Bhagavan every day.  On mondays I do it even
> more elaborately.  This monday, I went overtime and got late for work.  As
> it was quite hot outside and I was in a rush, I decided not to change from
> my dhoti and went as is.  On the train a couple of Indians were ooh-ing
> and ah-ing about how nice it is that a young man is so religious.  But I
> thought to myself, these people probably saw me a 100 times in t-shirt and
> jeans and never said anything and now because I'm wearing a dhoti I am
> suddenly a Maharshi?

>
Is not the visuals seen by the people
superficial ?.since on certain occasion
what we see might not be true.The people
who thought that the man is religious are commenting only on the dress,
probably the man could have worn this for a drama  and not for only puja.
Sometimes the same people
would think a siddhar ( a sort of enlightened
persons,as addressed in Tamil nadu) as a
mad man and equivate a mad man as a siddhar. These assumptions cannot be
always
construed as true and false.The exteriors
as seen of a person cannot be measured in a 1-10 bhakthi scale since as an
outsider we
cannot predict the levels of bhakthi achieved
by a bhaktha.This can be scaled only by  bhaghawan. As an outsider can we
predict
who between  "Meera" and "Surdas" where better bhaktas of Lord Krishna. Only
the lord
can know it, isn't it ?

> The answer people give to Sanskrit Beginners' predicament is satsanga --
> the company of the pure devotees.  But this implies that you can tell the
> difference between satsanga and kusanga.  Using superficial criteria to
> discriminate is wrong and fruitless but refusing to discriminate at all
> out of paralyzing fear of appearing "judgmental" is also wrong and
> fruitless.  Judgement should be refined further and further.  It should be
> directed just as strictly (if not more) at ones own conduct as anyone
> elses.  But it's still making a judgement.

People do judge a person and asertain that
he is a great bhaktha of so and so lord. But
the question is the sacle of greatness,  which
can be only assertained by the receiver of the
bakthi. The relationship is one to one and I
think only these two know how their
relationship is evolving. We may and can pass
judgement and why should we fear about it. This is in no way affecting them
since both are
not looking at us to measure.

Shankar.
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 01:56:11 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] upanishad mahAvAkya
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID:
> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0409010141150.10462 at diku.intranet.braincell.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Sanskrit Beginner wrote:
>
> >  Now, my contention is this: If the description of
> > this "apparent reality" is not consistent within the system,
> > then the methodology to get oneself out of it will necessarily
> > be different as well.
>
> The goal of Advaita sadhana is not to attain real reality (Though in the
> beginning it may be expressed that way.)  Real reality cannot be attained
> because it always was and is.  Rather the goal is to remove misunderstood
> reality (I prefer that term to unreality.)  when it is all gone by process
> of elimination only real reality will remain.
>
> > For example: for one who is fighting a
> > fire, knowing the type of fire is important to know how to put
> > it off. Like a fire due to gasoline or chemicals is different
> > from just wood buring etc. Saying it depends on the nature of
> > the student/listener addresses only part of the problem.
> > Every "student" is still a mortal, enjoy happiness, suffers
> > pain, and makes mistakes. The description of reality
> > and "apparent reality" especially, must address to this common
> > problem.
> >
>
> >From the ontological point of view all that needs to be known about a
> particular thing is whether it is satya or mithya.
>
>
> --
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 02:02:00 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] upanishad mahAvAkya
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID:
> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0409010157050.10462 at diku.intranet.braincell.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:
>
> > The pa~nciikara.nam also singles out these four statements.
> >
> > As a side note: personally, I don't understand this obsession with
> > post and pre-"sa.mkara advaitins. Should anyone not explain anything
> > differently compared to "sa.mkara? Does that make them non-advaitins?
>
> Maybe, maybe not.  Where do you draw the line?  Understanding the
> historical place of a particular thinker or the historical development of
> an idea is also an important tool of analysis.
>
> > All advaitins are unanimous in declaring the ultimate unreality of the
> > world and the unity of aatman. When it comes to explaining the
> > empirical world and why there seems to be a perception of an empirical
> > world, there are differences.
> >
> > A Western education seems to compound the post/pre "sa.mkara muddle.
>
> Not just Westerners or the westernized were interested in such questions.
>
> --
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 06:54:24 GMT
> From: Sanskrit Beginner <sanskrit_beginner at unlimitedmail.org>
> Subject: [Advaita-l] clarification on terminology
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, A discussion group for Advaita
> Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID: <200409010654.i816sO3J010326 at mail.unlimitedmail.org>
>
> namo namah
>
>  I would like to understand the differences between the terms
> used frequently in discussion on advaita vedanta. Request
> members' help, with establishing a context to understand it in
> as well.
>
> What is maya?
> What is mithya? How is it different from maya?
> What is avidya? How is it different from maya and mithya?
> What is satya? how is it different from asatya and mithya?
> Is there a difference between jiva and atma? What is the
> difference between jiva and paramatma?
> What is a pramana? Is there a difference between pramana and
> prameya?
> Is vidya merely knowledge of satya and knowledge of
> differentiating it from everything else?
>
> Are these merely sanskrit terms to be understood, or are there
> historical/philosophical connotations behind these that one
> should be aware of as well?
>
> I know these would be highly emperical questions, but I
> thought its better to be a fool for a day than be one forever!
> More to come as I encounter basic confusions.
>
> dhanyavaadah
>
>
> --------------------------------------
> Message sent from the
> Unlimited Mail Free Services Platform.
> http://www.unlimitedmail.net
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 07:15:30 GMT
> From: Sanskrit Beginner <sanskrit_beginner at unlimitedmail.org>
> Subject: RE: [Advaita-l] namo namah: and some questions
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, A discussion group for Advaita
> Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID: <200409010715.i817FUkq023589 at mail.unlimitedmail.org>
>
> namo namah:
>
> > ---The above is one very good reason for advocating
> > ---satsanga and the need for a Guru.
>
>  satsangs I find are more into devotional singing than
> intellctual discussions/discourses on real issues; turns out
> to be too much of an emotional thing, and am not able to vibe
> with it.
>
>  Guru - too much skepticism and world seems full of quasi
> knowldegeable people pretending to be Guru's - I think the
> Guru needs to be a personal guide on the journey, and I am
> unable to find one that I trust fully to be able to follow
> him/her to the letter. Also involves too much committement
> that I am unable to make at this time.
>
> suggestions?
>
> dhanyavaadhah
>
>
> --------------------------------------
> Message sent from the
> Unlimited Mail Free Services Platform.
> http://www.unlimitedmail.net
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advaita-l mailing list
> Advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
>
> End of Advaita-l Digest, Vol 17, Issue 1
> ****************************************