[Advaita-l] More records - last part
satisharigela at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 22 14:52:49 CDT 2011
I am responding to multiple posts in this one.
Senani garu wrote:
>If it cannot be invoked to make a difference over such a large extent of time
>space, whatever potency it has - or whatever is required to invoke that potency
>(that we lacked in the last fifty generations) - does not help
>Against this, if you choose to believe that some successful prayogas
>have been done, I can only commend your devotion
As I was thinking about this, I was just reminded of an incident from my school
During a discussion with a room-mate on yoga practice, I remarked that a certain
that I was practicing is easier to get into it and remain in it for longer
period if the stomach is
completely empty. My roomie, in a tone which would seemed to convey that I am
just making up something or blabbering asked "There is no relation between
stomach being empty and doing asana-s no? Why will it(empty stomach) make
asana-s easy?" I tired explaining but he did not seem convinced or probably he
doesnt want to be convinced. Instead of "thinking about" how can empty stomach
makes one perform Asana-s well, he should have practiced haTha yoga for some
weeks and could have experienced or seen(not believe) it himself. As far as I
remember he never practiced. He can "think about it" i.e. the why or how of it
for another 100 years and still he may not get the experience or anubhava if he
never practices it.
When something comes to experience or anubhava one need not beleive in it. They
Venkatesh Murthy ji wrote:
> But she went away with her family to
>some unknown place This was 1992 so no mobile phones were there. But
>he was madly in love. He always repeated a mantra of Devi day and
>night sometimes with tears in eyes.
I definitely dont see this as a mAntric practice. mantra-s are supposed to be
recited with a calm mind.
The shAstra advises that mantra japa should not be done when the manas was
overcome with dukha or any other strong emotions. The only exception to this may
be during extreme bhaya or in some rare cases.
A tAntrika or mantrin indulges in mantra practice with utmost ekAgrata and not
with other thoughts.
I see their union as just coincidence and i see no reason why mantra-s should be
dragged into this picture
>One has to remember the meaning of the statement and that is always better
>retained in memory if the >composition is such that it can be sung to a tune.
>The teacher can start with letting the person enjoy of >the mantra to the tune
>and commit the mantra to memory and then the teacher can explain the meaning of
>>the mantra if the mantra is appealing to the person. Teacher may also chose the
>specific mantra to suit >the person by knowing the person beforehand.
My goodness! When you say tune do you mean setting it to some music? If so there
is no bigger blunder than that. Sorry to say this but the process you mention
cant be more un-shAstric.. seriously!
There is no problem with the last statement, teachers determine what mantra(s)
to give to the student after observing and understanding the student for a
certain time period.
>Meaning - A mantra does not attain its potency even when one recites mantra for
>millions of time without >knowing the meaning and the significance of that
The shloka says the mantra should be understood and the mantra chaitanya should
be evoked for it to give phala but notice that it does not say you should have
faith in that mantra. The very concept of having faith/beleif in a mantra is
meaningless or more precisely redundant because of its objective nature.
>I wonder why. For example, suppose some scientist comes up with a theory, well
>in his labs and presents it, and if I were to question him: is this
>verifiable as per _Vedic_process_ or Nyaya, etc, what will the scientist do?
>He'd think that I've lost my mind in asking for an impossibility. I feel our
>response to a _scientifically_verifiable_process_ of a vedic injunction
>should be exactly the same. Each language has its own tools/ grammar and
>cannot be analyzed through other's set of tools.
Thank you for the comments and we seem to think alike on this one.
It is interesting to note your above comments, because when debating with
I often asked if it makes sense to ask a Physician if he can offer a linguistic
proof of his theory.
They thought I was being crazy. :-)
>IMHO, to blindly believe that what shruti says, be it in karma kANDA, is
>true with no questions whatsoever is not superstition.
My teacher always held that believing in something irrational which is outside
the shAstra counts as superstition. So it is similar to what you seem to feel.
As for scientists, we can see that there are 1)scientists & there are2) People
who blindly adhere to a religion called science.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list