[Advaita-l] Pancikarana vs. Trivrtkarana (analysis)

[Michael Shepherd]

Dear Shri Krishamurthy,

While not wishing to detract from your fine comments -- we should not forget
that Newton was a devout man, seeking Truth where he might find it; that he
knew and admitted the relative 'insignificance' of his work on the material
world and its laws; and that all the scriptures remind us that if we seek
Truth, it will come to us..
Newton's humility remains a light for all scientists..

I hope you don't mind my mentioning this a propos Isaac Newton..

pranams,
Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
[mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of
srirudra at vsnl.com
Sent: 20 April 2009 11:21
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Pancikarana vs. Trivrtkarana (analysis)



Dear Members
Our Rishis were searching for the Truth or Brahman absolutely believing that
there should be such an one,whereas Newton`s discovery was quite
accidental.Newton was not searching for Gravitational force and he fumbled
on it.Ofcourse he used deductive reasoning and came to the conclusion that
there is a force exerted by the earth on all its denizens.Almost all
scientific discoveries were quite accidental.But our Maharishis were having
unshakable faith that there should be something responsible for the creation
of the Universe as we see it and the laws governing its functions.So in
their 24x7 meditations they revealed the truths as and when they saw
it.Nethi nethi is the chisel they used to unravel that Brahman is only the
Sathyam.Some thoughts on Apaureshaya .R.Krishnamoorthy.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Yadu Moharir" <ymoharir at yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, April 17, 2009 2:49 am
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Pancikarana vs. Trivrtkarana (analysis)
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>

> Namaste Bhaskar Prabhu-Ji
>  
> You are still missing the point.
>  
> What I had said earlier was -
>  
> "Where the properties of specific herbs remain "apauruSheya" and
> the sages who observed the corresponding use became the dR^iShTaa
> for those R^icaa.
>  
> Just like gravity is apauruSheya but Newton observed and
> documented how it functions and it's relevance to our lives. 
> Therefore Newton is no less than a R^iShi."
>  
> I again stress that the apauruSheya thing here was "GRAVITY" which
> was not created by any human being and is eternal.  Newton was the
> observer and formulate for bringing it to the rest of the human
> beings, through his formulas.  The the process of knowledge is not
> apauruSheya, neither it's observer and how they observed.  The
> eternal principle is the apauruSheyatva.  After learning about it
> and then it is up to us to utilize it.  Where to apply it is the
> viniyoga portion.   Finally it is up to the current reader at
> present to utilize the specific knowledge.
>  
> It is unfortunate that folks keep on discussing mundane things
> this through eyes of specific smapradaaya and think that know and
> they have understood but fail to apply it to the present.  Why do
> forget the famous remarks from manusmR^iti ;
>  
> aj~nebhyo granthinaH shreShThaa\, granthibhyo dhaariNo varaaH |
> dhaaribhyo j~naaninaH shreShThaa\, j~naanibhyo vyavasaayinaH ||
> manusmR^iti 12-103||
>
> Meaning - Someone who has studied a little is better than totally
> ignorant. Someone who has memorized them are better than someone
> who knows a little. One who knows the meaning is superior to those
> who memorizes. However, one who practices it (knowledge) is
> certainly the most superior.
>
> I think most of the vedantic discussions are like a motion on a
> rocking chair, where one feels the motion but does not go anywhere
> !  At the same token feels that they have the profound knowledge
> of vedaanta.  IMO - Unless they practice it there is absolute no
> value to that knowledge. If acharya did not want to use his
> advaitic principles then he would not have traveled all over India
> to establish various "maTha".  How many of them even talk to each
> other !?  All they are interested in is "paadya-puujaa".
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Dr. Yadu
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
> --- On Wed, 4/15/09, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Pancikarana vs. Trivrtkarana (analysis)
> To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-
> l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 10:18 PM
>
>
>
> praNAms Sri Yadu prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
> I do completely agree with you prabhuji that one should recite
> maNtra-s
> knowing its meaning & viniyOga...But my question is entirely
> different..Since you said ONLY knowledge is apaurusheya and the
> words/maNtra-s that depict the knowledge is the composition of
> Rishi-s
> (implying text of the veda is paurusheya) I asked my doubt why we
> shouldnot change these texts in a more clear & readable way!! 
> After all, you
> agree with me changing the words, grammer in veda-s would not
> bring any
> change to the knowledge that is representing by it...Instead 'changed'
> maNtra-s with simple and readable manner, complying with strict
> rules of
> grammer would reach more people without any complications &
> controversies...But why nobody tried their hands in this direction
> sofar??Why still we are believing only some set of texts as
> apaurusheya and other
> texts as paurusheya??  Dont you think paurusheya texts (like
> smruti, purAna
> etc.)  also contain the apaurusheya knowledge??  but then why we give
> apaurusheya status to ONLY veda-s & paurusheya status to smruti &
> purANa-s??
>
> With regard to your quote from Rigveda about 'guptAnga' of stree,
> maNtra-s
> like this we can find a plenty in saMhita-s, brahmaNa-s & AraNyaka-
> s...Butthat does not mean these veda maNtra-s have been written
> 'after' these
> incidents & Rishi-s who physically seen these incidents !!  can we say
> after the invention of 'nail cutter' chAndOgya has been written by
> someRishi by taking this example?? can we say after nachiketa's
> journey to
> yamalOka, kaTha has been written??  In one of the upanishads there
> is a
> long list of brahma jnAni-s (muNdaka I think!!), can we say after
> the life
> time of all these rishi-s, some other rishi listed these names in that
> upanishad after reading the biographies of those Rishi-s??
>
> kAnchi mahaswamigal observes that veda-s (texts) are infinite and
> it is not
> a composition of any rishi and the rishi has seen/hear  the particular
> maNtra, hence we prostrate before him & remember him as maNtra
> drashtra and
> not as maNtra karta ...Kindly refer Hindu dharma chapter 8 to 16 with
> regard to this.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org