[Advaita-l] The Human aspect of Jnanis - 5 (Concluded)

[Mahesh Ursekar]

Pranams to all!

Thanks very much for your patience in addressing my questions! One
clarification: Though my polemic seemed to target Sankaracharya, the real
purpose was to understand the concept of a Jnaani (in line with the subject
of the thread). The Acharya was supposed to be used only as a marker. The
fault is all mine if this came through otherwise.

Thanks again, Mahesh


On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 1:00 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> Namaste.
>
> Here is yet another 'view' -
>
> Quoted below is an excerpt from Swami Maheshananda Giri's introduction to
> the Chandogya Upanishad Bhashya, edited and published by Mahesh Research
> Institute, Varanasi, 1982:
>
> //  We have been studying the different commentators, such as Srikantha,
> Ramanuja, Vallabha, Nimbarka, Baladeva, Srikara, Madhva and the moderners,
> for over fifty years now.  We have seen that apart from the criticism of
> the
> Advaita-view, there is little more in the content of their traditional view
> that is not found in Shankara, or is not just a logical corollary of what
> he
> has said.  It is our challenge that apart from logic-chipping, not a single
> spiritual fibre, which has not been either supported or contradicted by
> Shankara, can be shown in the works of these commentators.  All the
> statements of the other commentators about God, are melted down in the
> crucible of the concept of Saguna Brahman of Shankara.  The concept of
> Brahman of Srikantha and Ramanuja is practically identical with Shankara's
> concept of Ishwara, and they rarely try to contradict it.  Similarly,
> Shankara's concept of Virat or Sutratman takes care of Madhva, Vallabha and
> others.  Thus, what they contradict is the range outside their vision.  Had
> they been true traditionalists, they would have presented different facets
> of the same Truth which Shankara had presented.  When it comes to present a
> positive aspect of the spiritual Being, they have little to say, though
> they
> roar to assert what it is not.  This gives the lie to their having received
> a different unbroken tradition.  ......but the traditionalist that Shankara
> was, he never criticised or disowned the views of Virat, Hiranyagarbha or
> Ishwara.  He rather developed complete harmony between them.  Thus, without
> any fear of contradiction, we can say that Shankara's is THE Hindu
> tradition. //
>
>
> And another view:
>
> Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi is reported to have said that all the three
> schools, Advaita, VishiShTAdvaita and Dvaita have one teaching in common:
> the transcending of the ego of the jiva. When this is accomplished, the
> other details hardly matter.
>
> Regards,
>
> subrahmanian.v
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hari Om, Mahesh,
> >
> > I'll try not to be repetitive, but its unlikely, and brief in my inline
> > reply.
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Mahesh Ursekar <
> mahesh.ursekar at gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > what I am trying to understand is the mind of the Jnaani (self
> > > realized soul).* Is what the Jnaani writes 'revealed' to him or her? Or
> > it
> > > is a product of his or her MI? *
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>