jagchat01 at YAHOO.COM
Sun Sep 15 03:37:50 CDT 2002
I have already got your point from your earlier mails
but I was keeping quiet as I did not want to get
caught in the crossfire!
I have in mind Totapuri (not Sri Ramakrishna's vedanta
Guru) who used to reside at Puri. People say he was
350 years old when he died. (That makes it fairly
recent for Jaldharji, I suppose!). He also looked
mighty ancient to me from his paintings which are
preserved at his seaside ashrama at Puri.
Totapuri also realised the non-dual absolute and
contributed to the dictum, "All is one". (Of course it
may be argued that he belonged to the Dashnami group
of Shankaracharya but I dare say his realisation was
from his own instincts rather than from books).
He was a North Indian and never much given to reading
books (I doubt he has read any). I don't suppose he
has read any of Sri Shankaracharyas works.
The Truth, as you say, is the Truth and it is not
dependant on anybody. Sages prior to Sri
Shankaracharya have also attained the non-dual state.
They may not have recorded their experiences as
systemetically as Sri Shankaracharya but that does not
sully their realisation any.
--- Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 21:37:53 -0700, Jagannath
> <jagchat01 at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> >--- "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM>
> >> Apart from the fact Apte wrongly says Brahma
> >> of Brahman this
> >> should be clear. It is "not two" not "all is
> >> There is a subtle
> >> difference in emphasis here. Can you see what it
> >> is?
> >It means that advaita is not a view/opinion/path
> but a
> >state. Is that it Jaldharji?
> It appears the fault is not Apte's - its the
> publishers'. The Sanskrit-
> Hindi edition of the dictionary correctly lists the
> term (brahman) as in
> Brahma (when you pronounce it in Hindi). The English
> probably made the mistake by translation the Hindi
> "Brahma" to English
> Brahma (as in Brahmaa - the creator) instead of
> Brahman which was intended.
> The question is really for Jaldhar but what I have
> been saying is that
> Advaita, the adjective, when used alone, could imply
> nothing else but
> Brahman (which alone is non-dual, blimishless etc.).
> However, Advaita in
> and of itself does not imply the term Advaita
> Vedanta. So when the saints
> not related to Advaita Vedanta tradition of Shri Adi
> Shankaracharya talk
> about Advaita, they are not talking about Advaita
> Vedanta of Adi Shankara,
> and it is not because of him (Adi Shankara) that
> they talk of Advaita (at
> least not necessarily).
> What Jaldhar has been saying is that Advaita denotes
> nothing but Advaita
> Vedanta known to us only through the lineage of Adi
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list