[Advaita-l] Logic and shastra

murali mohan murali_mohan at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 24 11:52:45 CDT 2005

Dear Maheshji,
If I may add my 2 paisa worth of thoughts on this thread :
I think all these stories/incidents like the Sankara episode (may or may not have happened) could be mere dramas enacted to teach the disciples or pass on a message to the readers in story form for better understanding of some concepts. As long as the teaching is imbibed, the incident can be best ignored or forgotten. Just as words needs to be discarded for proper assimilation of ideas sicne one idea can be expressed using different sets of words. Drink the content and throw off the container. Sorry if I don't make sense. This is my first contribution to this list and hope to do better in future. 

Mahesh Ursekar <mahesh.ursekar at gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for being patient with me. I appreciate that. So, I will make this
my last post on this topic lest it irriate the moderators, others (and most
of all you). First, from my standpoint, we are not going in circles but yet
have not answered the question to my satisfaction. Call me stupid.
Unfortunately, there will be questions below which you may or may not choose
to answer based on your frustration level, but they indicate the points that
I am not clear about.
First let me take another example - that of Sri Adi Sankaracharya, since
this list is about him. The famous story where is slightled a chandala as
being of lower birth is well known. Now, this realized person seems to have
created a "huge blunder of sorts" between what he did and what he taught.
How is that possible? Why was his judgement coulded by avidya at the time?
Was he being taught a lesson by Shiva (who took the *roop* of the chandala)?
Then was Shiva more realized than him? How does Advaita answer this?
In conclusion, let ask some questions that might explain things to my
simple minded intellect: Does the realized person see his or her BMI as an
entity acting in the leela of the world just like he or she would any other
person? Are you saying that all "negative" actions of the BMI - feeling
sorrow, getting angry, desiring, getting deluded by appearances (see above)
are goverened by prarabdh and have nothing to do with the person's
awareness? If not, then what is the relationship betwen his or her BMI and
the his awarness?
Humble pranams, Mahesh

On 10/24/05, praveen.r.bhat at exgate.tek.com 

> praNAm,
> 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.
> praveen:
> 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 :)
> ramakrishNArpaNamastu,
> --praveen
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.  

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list