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

[Ramesh]

Why do you make unsubscribing so painful and convoluted?  May be you are desperate to get members.  I unsubscribed weeks ago but still keep getting stuff from you and you overcome even spamming it and keep sending it.  I will report this if you do not just stop sending your stuff here.  When I try to unsubscribe again, you want me to log in and when I do, you say it failed!  What is going on with you guys?
Thanks.
R. Patel

||Jyotirmayi bhavatu jivana-madhuri te|| May sweetness and light pervade your life!

--- On Sun, 7/25/10, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:


From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] The Human aspect of Jnanis - 5 (Concluded)
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Sunday, July 25, 2010, 3:30 AM


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