Chelluri at AOL.COM
Chelluri at AOL.COM
Sat Feb 14 22:56:20 CST 1998
This discussion is interesting.
I want to talk about several matters but like to see the response first how
the members feel about the following. All I am going to post has relevance to
I have great reverence to paramacharya of Kanchi Kamakoti peetam. In his
presence mind becomes quiet and I feel nothing. Absolutely nothing.
My cousin, she is now 70 years old. She was married when she was 12 and her
husband died 6 months later. She remained a widow "cause of the tradition.
She told me the following.
She along with my father and other members went to see Paramacharya when she
was 20. Attendents of Acharya stopped her at the door and did not allow her
to go in to see the acharya. They told her 'cause she is widow she can not go
in. When they are telling the reason, a DOG went thru without any obstacle.
She asked me although she is human she did not worth as much as that Dog. She
asked me why?
I told her her when I know the answer I will let her know.
My relative told me the following.
Everybody is in line to receive Tirtham (holy water) from Paramacharya. When
a young tamilian girl took her stand, Swami refused to give her tirtham. At
that moment it seems the young girls husband died and swami refused to give
her tirtham. A telegram came from Madras stating the girl's husbad died and
she is widow.
I dont understand the reasoning. Do you?
When I went to see him in late 80's I have seen widows in the line and there
was no problem. Does the acharyas react to times?
I believe to become a guru or jeevanmukta one has to go beyond "Ashtangayogas"
If you dont know what ashtangayogas, better consult Patanjali.
It is not a easy task.
I believe Hinduism is a open religion unlike other religions. We believe in
almost everything with Vedas as pramanam. I am not a sanskrit scholar to
I have to depend on translators. Translators usually inject their own ideas
and YOU know that too. Lets not have closed house. Open it to ideas from all
Rigveda says "Let noble thoughts come to us from all sides"
Mr.Angel is right. Whether you call Buddha is a Jnaani or not its immaterial.
He is a Jnaani and Jeevanmukta. And so you are if you can follow
>From ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU Sun Feb 15 01:09:48 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.15.FEB.1998.010948.0500.ADVAITAL at TAMU.EDU>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 01:09:48 -0500
Reply-To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Prashant Sharma <psharma at BUPHY.BU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Memory - part of the Self?
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <18.104.22.168.19980213173705.005cc980 at prd1b>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Gregory Goode wrote:
> If you want to look at it from another (non-Sruti, but I think logically
> unassailable) viewpoint, you can say this -- there's no proof at all that
> anything that seems like a memory really happened. There's nothing but the
> idea or appearance that is NOW. Some ideas seem obviously NOW, like the
> feeling of love, or pain. Other ideas might seem to point to another time,
> and we call these memories. But there's no time outside of the present
> appearance. So there's no proof that there even ARE vasanas or memories or
> any of that. [...]
In a similar vein there is no proof that there is a NOW.
Infact it is reasonable to assume that there is a past, because it follows
causality (on the basis of memory one knows that things happened in a
causal way). All the knowledge that we have is of the past. We know
nothing about the present. It doesnot exist for us, what exists is an idea
of the present that arises from a notion of continuity and on the basis of
memory. I really do not see how you can make this statement (that there
is only a NOW) so easily. Unless, you mean something like the following:
Existence is in the present, it is NOW (assumption!). Everything else
(essentially thought) has an element of time associated with it and thus
can't have anything to do with NOW. If one denies that his existence has
anything to do with thought (in other words the question "who am I" has no
answer of the form "I am this") then he is asserting that he exists in the
NOW. Then he can say that there is only a NOW and all else (thought and
causal structure) is "mithya".
Is this what you are trying to say?
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list