The mind according to Sri Shankaracharya.
swamy at NFC.ERNET.IN
Fri Sep 13 02:55:31 CDT 2002
Can the language be more moderate in the discussion? If Mr.Kiran is a
sincere seeker and is raising the questions with sincerity, he deserves to
be heard and his questions answered. Shri Srikrishna's replies suggest that
he is getting annoyed with Sri Kiran, than Kiran's questions. I submit that
one can always differ with a person's point of view, but need not extend
the difference to the person!
If logic and intellect cannot answer questions, love and faith and patience
do provide answers. Let us extend that to all seekers.
At 09:47 11/09/02 -0700, Srikrishna Ghadiyaram wrote:
>Hari Om !!
>--- Kiran B R <kiranbr at ROCKETMAIL.COM> wrote:
>> >I do not have any FUNDAMENTAL doubts like what a
>> >brahmavid is . Please read your definition of what
>> >a brahmavid.
>> >Do not put new words in my mouth that I said
>> >'mANDUkyA' is unscientific. Do not irritate me, by
>> >joining me in your group. I do not belong to your
>> >group of FUNDAMENTAL DOUBTS men. Do not call me
>> >friend in your group.
>> Well, you were the one who said don't search for a
>> scientific answer,
>> search in the 'mANDUkyA' and 'bhAshya' instead! What
>> does that mean?
>I wrote earlier:
>"If you need more, scientific answer, you can continue
>to waste your life time, pursuing further.
>You will save yourself a lot of trouble, if you read
>mANDUkya and bhAshya and listen to it from a true
>advaitic teacher and scholer."
>In the above sentences I did not advocate that you
>should not search for a scientific answer. Instead I
>said, if you want a more scientific answer than what
>was explained by sage Vasishta and Swami Sivananda,
>you can confinue( in your present method of enquiry)
>and waste your precious life time.
>I added that if you follow the complete system
>explained in mANDUkya listening from a scholar (who is
>not a DIUBTS monger, and understands Sanskrit, and a
>true Advaita teacher (meaning who has studied
>systematically and has some prior experience of
>expounding the truths), you will save a lot of trouble
>of your own search because answers are there in those
>So, all along, without even listening what the others
>have been saying and determining why they are right,
>you presume that they are wrong because they do not
>have the same thought pattern such as yours, (eg, yes
>or no questions), you keep on furthering your own
>idiotic logic, and quote sentences out of place and
>with distorted meaning (which you have done in my
>case, for example). This is unscientific.
>> >You must keep silence until your brain starts
>> Silence comes when the brain *stops* working!
>Now, your brain is not working, it is causing havoc
>for your learning. It is dormant now or Tamasic. That
>is why you do not understand the TRUTH. Alternatively,
>your brain needs to work in the Sattva mode.
>In the Devi Gita/Chandi patha it is explained that the
>intelligence is of three kinds: Sattva, Rajas, and
>Tamas. Your apparent 'intelligence' which seems to
>work logically is working in the tamasic zone. For a
>person to understand the truths of scriptures, it
>needs to work in the Sattvic zone. (yA dEvI sarva
>bhUteshu BUDHI rUpENa samsthitA, namah tasyai namah
>tasyai nah tasyai namo namaha - three times namah
>No, From silene brain (mind) comes out. and merges
>again into it.
>silence is ever present it does not come from some
>> >It is easy to get oil out of sand, it is easy to
>> >search for a hare's horn, but one can not convince
>> >FOOL. You must read and understand Bhartruhari
>> >Subhashita, so you know how well a person who
>> >questions like you, compares to a FOOL.
>> I don't need to read any Subhashita to conclude that
>> a person questioning
>> like me compares to a FOOL! I never claimed to be a
>> learned person! I came
>> to this list *because* I am a FOOL! It is a FOOL who
>> asks questions. Not a
>> learned person!
>No, you are wrong again.
>It is a FOOL who simply starts with a doubt and ends
>with a doubt. A learned person questions and seeks and
>answer. He is willing to shed his pre-conceived
>notions, and seeks only TRUTH, not truth of his own
>I explained that if some one is not able to answer a
>FOOL, it is not that TRUTH does not exist. It is the
>nature of a FOOL that no-one can convince him on the
>> >Spare me from your instinct to question the
>> >definitions of an established subjects.
>> Why? Where does it hurt?!
>Because I am here to know the subject as is known to
>them. I am not going to come and fight you in your
>house. I better take what you have to offer, if I like
>> > You write your
>> >own definitions in a book of your own and read for
>> >yourself. I am not here to learn your definitions.
>> Don't learn my definitions! Who asked you to learn
>> my definitions?! If an
>> idiot says 2+2=5, why do you go ahead and 'learn'
>> that 2+2=5? Why are you
>> scared of even clearing his doubts? Why are you
>> scared of asking yourself
>> whether 2+2=5 or not?! Why? Have you forgotten the
>> answer? Or did you
>> always assume that 2+2 is something else because
>> someone told you?
>Because it is a FOOL who is asking this, and there is
>no way to convince a FOOL. This fact is know after a
>few initial attempts.
>Life is small and I better use it for pursuit of TRUTH
>and not waste it to convince a FOOL.
>Om Namo Narayanaya !!
>Yahoo! - We Remember
>9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list