[Advaita-l] Logic and shastra

praveen.r.bhat at exgate.tek.com praveen.r.bhat at exgate.tek.com
Mon Oct 24 09:47:36 CDT 2005


Mahesh-ji wrote:
But that is exactly what I am trying to point out. When you say: he comes
down to the level of the observer to teach there needs to be a second
observer. But, in all the examples I have given in this thread, there was no
other observer. These feelings that the 'realized soul' had were told to the
observer after they occured. While they occured, there was no one else but
the guru.

Mahesh-ji, the answers here are still the same, as your question is too.
There was no one different earlier, there is no one different later. But as
you say "there is no one else from the guru" is what the guru knows. The
disciple sees the prarabdha of the guru, namely, "of teaching" acting on him
and gets taught. That is, IMHO, you're mixing up the viewpoints of
paramArthic & vyavhAric. Even so, when Swami Vivekananda/ Ramakrishna are
*seen* to say things like that, it can't be taken from the paramArthic
angle. The context is clearly, vyavhAric there, else it would be like saying
that the "realized soul" is hungry. Its not the realized soul thats hungry,
as much as the realized is not *feeling*. The ego in the BMI complex that
acts out the prarabdha (as seen by the onlookers) is eating, teaching,
crying, praying, etc.

I pointed out Ramakrishna since you talked of him and SV. I don't think the
traditional advaita guru would accept that the realized "comes down" to the
level, per se. But it has to be taken in the context such as "God will take
care of me", the context that we pray in, etc. Ramakrishna's biographical
works tell you of the path to walk, the bhakti, and that all paths have a
similar meaning, etc. However, my understanding is that his quotes can't be
taken on face value to advaitic conclusions. He has walked many paths. eg,
if an advaitin got liberated who had been a physicist earlier and gave
examples from physics for some teachings, it would be improper to take those
on face value, vis-a-vis, advaitic knowledge. I'm sorry if this is a drastic
example in reference to the paramhamsa, but all I'm trying to bring out is
that Ramakrishna talked from various planes, depending on various
surrounding factors for the benefit of others. eg, his trances have no
advaitic value, as I know of. Another example would be Ramana, who spent
some time in school after realization, later spent so many years in
Virupaksha cave. All this could give rise to Qs such as why does a realized
have to do either? Its just so, "as we (the onlookers) saw and recorded" it
has no advaitic knowledge to share, IMHO. Once again, if it helps, assume
(though wrong, but accepted by some) that its the realized's prarabdha
acting on the body.

I rest my case. I think we're going in circles and is time enough to take it
offline if needed :)


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list