message to my friends

[Prashant Sharma]

On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, f. maiello wrote:

> Prashant Sharma wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, f. maiello wrote:
> > > [...]...other margas and
> > > sadhanas can get one there just as well, without the
> > > ideas and theories of advaita;
> >
> >         Just how does one know that there is a "there"
> > without advaita vedAnta telling so?
>
> This is only a way of alluding to it from the assessment
> of someone defining themselves as being "not-there."
> And isn't the condition of what "there" may be like also
> postulated by other spiritual philosophies, such as the
> nirvana of the Buddhists, heaven of the Christians,
> devachan or brahmaloka(?) of the Vaishnavas, etc.

        The point I am trying to make is that whatever one thinks about
the "other state" is because, and in terms of, some existing philosophy.
There is no "proof" that there is some other state of being, independent
of what a philosophy defines that to be. It is therefore quite clear that
only one philosophy can get you "there". Some other school of thought will
lend itself to an approach that shall take one somewhere else. So, as long
as we are going places let us ride the same bus. The possibility that we
arrive at the same place is not ruled out, but it is not proven either.

>
>
> > > and, secondly, if/when
> > > finally and consciously abiding in the Self, the
> > > sadhu's "experience" therein is likened to a buddhic
> > > "white-out," where all conceptions, theories, and
> > > even ideals are meager and fractional modalities and
> > > involvements, with no more value than pesky insects
> > > in the Garden of Bliss.
> > >
> > > As Buddha said, "Upon reaching the other shore,
> > > why then carry the raft on your back?"
> > >
> >         Why then did Buddha expound a philosophy and thus
> > (in your way of putting it) carry the raft on his back?
> >
>
> It was his prarabdha to be a teacher.  He was also utterly
> detached from his teaching--which, incidentally, was the
> antithesis of a philosophy or religion.

        Which didn't make the end result any different did it?


> namaste
>
Prashant.

>From  Thu Aug 13 19:26:15 1998
Message-Id: <THU.13.AUG.1998.192615.0400.>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 19:26:15 -0400
Reply-To: ramakris at erols.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM>
Subject: Re: vivekachUdAmani
Comments: To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Vaidya N. Sundaram wrote:

>  I also request members to find time to discuss the relevance or other
> interpretations of AUM in this forum. I am also especially interested the
> method of intonation: is it to be said aloud, or meditated upon etc.
>
> bhava shankara desikame sharaNam.

Vaidya,

Some authorities are of the opinion that pure praNava should be chanted
only by sannyAsis. Some others think anyone can. However all are agreed
upon the fact that only after initiation by a guru, praNava can be
chanted or made japa of. In any case, the guru will properly instruct
while giving upadesha. It's better not to learn pronunciation, etc from
books or from discussion forums. It does not serve much purpose anyway,
since without upadesha it cannot be chanted.

The praNava has deep significance. It is split into the three letters a,
u and m.h which stand for vishva, taijasa and prAGYa respectively. The
mANDUkya upanishhad, the gauDapAda kArika-s and the bhAshhya of
sha.nkarAchArya are very useful in understanding this. Please refer to
that. I'll try to summarize their points when I get the time.

Rama.

>From  Thu Aug 13 19:41:35 1998
Message-Id: <THU.13.AUG.1998.194135.0400.>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 19:41:35 -0400
Reply-To: ramakris at erols.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM>
Subject: Re: New member introduction: shrI Subhanu Saxena
Comments: To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Saxena, Subhanu wrote:

> With reference to Jaldhar Vyas's view that it is better to study one's
> own Sakha, I certainly fall in the camp that it is better to study a
> Sakha than no Sakha,  Having been brought up in London, I had no
> exposure to any veda Sakha's in my family beforehand.  All I had was an
> intense desire to study Veda and, as luck would have it I met a learned
> scholar of Taittiriya Sakha. I consider my self extremely fortunate and
> priviledged to have been given the training I received and I am
> consistently heartened whenever I hear of anyone who has decided to
> study Veda. I am afraid that I have become less parochial over the years
> having now worked in a number of countries round the world.  While it is
> fine as a starting point to say "you should study your own Sakha", for
> those of us who were not fortunate enough to be in that position to
> begin with its a case of being grateful to be given the chance just to
> study.  In these modern times, the overrriding concern right now is
> preservation of the tradition whenever and however we can.

I appreciate your concern for the vedas and propogation of it. I also
agree with you that studying some veda is better than not studying any
at all. However in the very kR^ishhNa yajur veda you are studying it is
said:

svAdhyAyAnmA pramadaH |

One's own veda should be studied. While this is not interpreted as a
rule by advaitins (it occurs in the upanishhads), it is certainly
treated as a suggestion. And that's only the tradition we have been
following all this time also. This tradition is not restricted to
advaitins: all dvaitins, vishishhTAdvaitins also follow it.

Jaldhar also is from the UK (I think he was born there) and has made
study of the shukla yajurveda. Perhaps he can offer you suggestions on
who to contact.

You should not think the view that ones own shAkha should be studied
first is "parochial". Such a characterization is quite subjective. For
eg, all advaita teachers are of the view that drinking, taking drugs,
etc is not conducive to spiritual welfare. Should we condemn such a view
as parochial? We should take it in the right spirit. Jaldhar is not
saying other vedas are bad and only shukla yajurveda is good. It is just
that the vedas themselves say that one's own shAkha should be given
preference and has been accepted by all our teachers. So, if we have
faith in them we should abide by them.

However if it's impossible to get a teacher for shuklayajur veda, it
would be better to read some other veda than none at all.

Rama

>From  Thu Aug 13 19:42:35 1998
Message-Id: <THU.13.AUG.1998.194235.0400.>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 19:42:35 -0400
Reply-To: ramakris at erols.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM>
Subject: Re: buddha and his teachings(Re: message to my friends)
Comments: To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Maadhavan Srinivasan wrote:

> >As such, discussion on nAstika philosophies like buddhism,
> >jainism, etc. is not permitted on this list. Please avoid it.

> If it is the case, then why you published Thvaida philosopies such as
> ambal sthothrams in this Advaita list.
>
> Regards
> Madhavan.

I am outa here :-).

Rama