[Advaita-l] On the forms of Guru
anbesivam2 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 24 19:50:26 CDT 2010
Dear Sri Vidyasankar,
>From my point of view there is a beejaaksharam involved in this and there is
a process and condition attached in its revealation. So much so I have to
let you hold on to what you think is the truth if you do not agree with me
that it represents Easwara. Perhaps you may wish to think that I am giving
you an excuse. It is OK with me.
Bhagavan Ramana to whom I owe my learning does not consider hrdhayam to be
the mind. I did quote Him from His Upadesa Saaram. I also have as much
learnt under a Guru (and not just through books) on Sankara's advaita and do
not for a moment think that the two have any difference among themselves.
Actually one of Bhagavan's first works was his treatise of Sankara's
DhakshiNaamoorthy SthOthram. One may claim that Bhagavan Ramana is
different from Sankara and then disown Him for not falling in line with
certain concepts that someone understands as being not in line with
Sankara. If you are one of them it is your choice.
"ps. In the bhAshya-s, Sankara bhagavatpAda does not see any reason to
distinguish between the physical heart and a so-called spiritual heart.
the world, the heart (not the brain) was traditionally considered the seat
the mind. And there is both a literal and a metaphorical usage of the word
"heart" in the texts, ranging across multiple systems of thought. As far as
can see, all this talk of a "spiritual heart" that is different from the
heart (and then going on to specify a physical location for this spiritual
- why?!!) is a 19th century reaction to the prevailing medical view of the
as a mere blood pump. Today, there is increasing scientific recognition that
the heart is a much more complicated organ, and there is even a field of
medicine called neurocardiology."
And Sunilji is right. Bhagavan says the locale of the hrdhayam is on the
right chest where we all point to when saying 'I'. Hrdhayam is translated
as heart in English for whatever reason but that does not mean it is a
physical heart that is on the left that is meant.
The vedanthin hold that the locale of the mind is at the throat. Sorry to
differ with you on that one (because you think it is in the physical heart)
and hold on to a view that is much more ancient than the 19th century! (By
the way that is the reason that the maangalyam is tied there!). For more on
that you may wish to read my second musing posted in this list.
I know that so many people consider western education to be superior and all
knowledge should be known in its light. On the other hand we folks talk of
'para' vidya some of which are not even written or spoken, yet transmitted
from the Guru to sishya. The western education would be nowhere near it!
And finally I do know you 'absolutely do not like to argue for argument
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:32:56 -0400
> > From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com
> > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> > Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] On the forms of Guru
> > ".......... have something called a hRt, which is but another term
> > for what is called mind in the English language."
> > Mind is the sthalam and the hRth is Easwara the saguNa Brahman. It is
> > called pundareekam where hRt dwells.
> If hRt is the same as ISvara, then please explain the gItA verse, where
> dwells in the hRdaya!
> Permit me to reiterate what I wrote yesterday - I absolutely do not like to
> argue merely for the sake of arguing. Rather than making arbitrary
> let me merely point you to the bhAshya on muNDakopanishat, verses 2.2.7-8
> (manomayaH ... hRdayaM sannidhAya ... bhidyante hRdaya-granthiS chidyante
> In the commentary on verse 2.2.7, Sankara bhagavatpAda equates hRdaya
> with buddhi, not the Atman. And in the commentary on verse 2.2.8, there
> is a specific statement "... hRdaya-ASrayAH, na AtmASrayAH". Here, hRdaya
> is expressly distinguished from Atman. Please read those bhAshya passages
> carefully. Other relevant bhAshya passages would be on taittirIya 1.6 (sa
> esho 'ntar hRdaya AkASaH . tasminn ayaM purusho manomayaH ..) and of
> course, on gItA 18.61 (ISvaras sarvabhUtAnAM hRd-deSe ...).
> I am deliberately not translating these here, because I do not want to
> my English translation upon you. I think that in many places where
> is used, what is meant overlaps largely with the connotation of the English
> word "mind", but you want to find fault with that. So, please go to the
> Sanskrit wording of the muNDaka bhAshya and satisfy yourself whether your
> blanket equation of hRdaya/hRt with the Atman is valid.
> Nothing further from me on this,
> Best regards,
> ps. In the bhAshya-s, Sankara bhagavatpAda does not see any reason to
> distinguish between the physical heart and a so-called spiritual heart.
> the world, the heart (not the brain) was traditionally considered the seat
> the mind. And there is both a literal and a metaphorical usage of the word
> "heart" in the texts, ranging across multiple systems of thought. As far as
> can see, all this talk of a "spiritual heart" that is different from the
> heart (and then going on to specify a physical location for this spiritual
> - why?!!) is a 19th century reaction to the prevailing medical view of the
> as a mere blood pump. Today, there is increasing scientific recognition
> the heart is a much more complicated organ, and there is even a field of
> medicine called neurocardiology.
> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list