doubt on the role of shruti vAkyAs ( was Re: [Advaita-l] advaita and vedas)

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

On 5/12/06, S Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Amuthan <aparyap at yahoo.co.in> wrote:

> Therefore your claim that both shravaNa-manana-nididhyAsana and Atma-vichAra
> are *two* ways to GYAna will not be accepted by RM, because he teaches that
> there is no way other than Atma-vichAra leading to GYAna.
>
> That's the reason I feel it may be that:
>
> shravaNa-manana-nididhyAsana = Atma-vichAra (Swami Dayananda Saraswati)
>

I also feel that manana+nididhyaasana is the same as aatma-vicaara.
Also RM has given slightly varying explanations of what he thinks
aatma-vicaara is in different places. Taken in conjunction with the
upadeshasaahasrii's teachings they are quite similar.

I suggest that people stop looking for *exact* matches in teachings.
This is a very Western notion and also a very Christian notion!  The
definition of nididhyaasana by even Sankara and Sureshvara don't match
and are vastly different. What is the point in seeing if it matches
exactly with RM?!! The tradition is not a bunch of parrots each
repeating the previous parrots sayings. There is considerable scope
for "inventiveness" while still being restrained by the traditional
"method".

Rama