[Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami
Praveen R. Bhat
bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Mon Jan 23 19:19:01 CST 2017
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Kripa Shankar <
kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I will divulge the full credentials of the scholar, you may pose any
> questions you may have. No, I don't know anything about ganapathi muni.
> Because I am not aware of any of his notable works in the field. However I
> know that he regularly comes up in discussion related to RM, by RM's own
Exactly what I said. When you give me the details of the scholar, I would
be free to say that the person is a scholar as per you and your "own
sources". You have absolutely no shraddhA in anyone but yourself! Don't
fall into that trap, you must be aware of संशयात्मा विनश्यति।
> So you are saying that any body who is not a Vedantin, even such a one can
> get mukti. That's interesting.
No, no, your concluding what I didn't say is interesting!
> So mukti is not limited to Veda / Vedanta.
Please do not impose your confusion or deliberate twisting on what I said.
I will say it again in clearer words: there is no mukti possible without
Vedanta jnAna. That jnAna can happen could have taken place in this life or
earlier. If you do not agree with the latter, you are contradicting shAstra
examples and your are using ardhajaratinyAya, which would make you
neovedantin as per your own definition.
> I also have a slight doubt here. Mukti as I understand is dependent on
> jnana nishta. Jnana nishtha is basically abidance in mahavAkya. So in this
> janma, if not an elaborate study, at least mahavAkya should be contemplated
> upon. Is it not? For that a guru is necessary or not? Or if you say
> mahavaakya is not necessary, then the Vedas / Vedanta takes a back seat
> because jnana is independent of it.
Does it? The independence is in your mind. If the shAstra gives an example
of a rare one who is born almost a jnAni, who has a little avidyAleSha
left, how do you explain it? If you disagree, your basis is not shAstra.
> In order to continue what was unfinished, we have to continue in the *
> same order *. If I am going to Kashmir from Bangalore, I can't tread one
> route today and change the route tomorrow. I have to continue in the same
> path until I reach the destination. Until and unless one studies Vedanta in
> this birth(at least a little), there is no way to conclude that a person
> would have studied it in previous births. Suppose I have read a book today
> and I want to write a review of that. But for some reason, I couldn't
> complete it today so I delay it till tomorrow. Tomorrow when I get up, I
> have to write the review to the book that I read yesterday, not any other.
> I can't say that my review is Independent of the book itself.
Please refer to Taittiriya Bhriguvalli mantra स तपोतप्यत and what
Bhashyakara says after raising a question as to how did Bhrigu know तपस्
was the means? And don't interpret तपस् independently, study what
Bhashyakara says. And please don't come back to say that Bhrigu was
instructed, since I am quoting this *only* to say that how the order
continues, be it across lives.
Jnana is dependent on Vedanta. So a jnAni would necessarily have to be a
> Vedantin because there can be no effect without a cause. The effect cannot
> be independent of the cause.
> Further many on this forum opine that we cannot conclude if a person is
> jnAni or not. So there is no consensus on this matter.
Not many, I would say almost everybody.
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list