[Advaita-l] BrahmaGYAna and jIvanmukti - 5 (Other References)
savithri_devaraj at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 1 21:43:30 CST 2007
--- S Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I was wondering whether or not to write this, but
> anyway, here goes.
Well, then you shouldn't have!
Here we go again...
Where is the relationship between Satchidanandendra
Saraswathi Swamiji and this thread? Why not blame him
for the bad weather also then?
Just for future information, Satchidanandendra Swamiji
didn't come up with sadhana catushtaya sampattih
pre-requisites for jnana marga. I thought people who
participated here know better than that.
There is a lot of confusion in advaita terminology,
and every writer can interpret terms to suit their own
point of view. I was stating my point of view, just as
you were stating yours and Vidyashankar was stating
his. And, I will continue to voice my dissent when I
see something incongrous and non-intuitive.
One more thing - writing in all caps on the internet
is equivalent to yelling. So, I request all to mind
their e-etiquette. This list is to discuss advaita
vedanta and learn from each other. How can we do that
if we are constantly instigating and inflaming each
This is my last post on this subject.
> Suppose the distinction between steady and unsteady
> AtmaGYAna is not
> advaitic, what would that imply? In the strength of
> the references
> I've provided, it would mean that:
> 1) Apastamba, whose verse on Atma-vichAra is quoted
> by none other
> than sureshvara, must be mistaken. Haradatta, the
> accepted by the tradition as authoritative on
> Apastamba, has to be
> 2) The VivekachUDAmaNi as well as the commentary on
> it by
> H.H. Chandrasekhara Bharati Mahaswamigal (H.H.),
> should be in error.
> 3) Ramana Maharshi didn't know what he was talking
> 4) Sankara for some strange reason must have spoken
> of effort to be
> made after saMyag-GYAna in his commentary on
> upanishhad 1.4.7.
> Last, but certainly not the least (arguably the most
> reference of all):
> 5) The BR^ihadaaraNyaka upanishhad 3.5.1, along with
> commentary on it, both of which speak of
> renunciation of desires
> after AtmaGYAna, ought to be interpreted in a
> twisted manner because
> the straightforward reading "just doesn't make
> Instead of the above mind-boggling possibilities,
> there is a simpler
> SWAMI SATCHIDANANDENDRA SARASWATI DID NOT COMPREHEND
> THE DIFFERENCE
> BETWEEN STEADY AND UNSTEADY ATMAGYANA.
> Now, regarding the pa~nchapAdikA:
> It is quite obvious that both H.H. and Ramana
> Maharshi had great
> respect for the VivekachUDAmaNi, as they've both
> commented on it.
> Given that two of the greatest jIvanmuktas of the
> 20th century have
> held this text in high esteem, we can safely assume
> that the
> VivekachUDAmaNi is firmly placed in the
> advaita-vedAnta tradition. As
> I've pointed out, the VivekachUDAmaNi actually
> follows the JMV quite
> closely, and H.H. even quotes the JMV as an
> authority in his
> commentary. It is therefore reasonable to say that
> the JMV is part
> and parcel of the advaita-vedAnta tradition. The JMV
> in turn quotes
> the pa~nchapAdikA as authority, which implies that
> the pa~nchapAdikA
> has to be in line with the advaita-vedAnta
> tradition. QED.
> PS: I sincerely apologize if this email offends
> anyone. My aim is not
> to offend, but only to point out a blatant
> inconsistency if one
> doesn't take the JMV or the pa~nchapAdikA as being
> in line with
> Sankara's works.
> 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
> with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list