[Advaita-l] Why should I believe in Adwaita vedanta over any other Philosophy?
urshankar at gmail.com
Tue Nov 2 12:49:22 CDT 2010
Dear Sri Praveen ji,
Sorry for the delay in my response. I did not want to hurry up in responding
and hence took time to write back.
Honestly, I have no other intention when I raise my questions on PrastAna
TrayA and what Shri Adi Shankara had said in his works. No intention of
putting anyone down or belittliting your views either.
You seem to have read and understood PrastAna TryA also you seem to be clear
and quite convinced that Bhavadpada had told what you have claimed as his
injunctions about the Guru.
So please help me with the answers for my earnest queries below.
1. Did Sri Adi Shankara anywhere in his works mentioned that the Guru MUST
be a brahmana and a shrotriya as well?
2. Can you kindly give reference ot the original text and kindly quote the
verses here as well?
3. Did Sri Adi Shankara anywhere in his works insist and lay stress upon the
study of PrastAna TrayA as fundamental requirement or a MUST-LEARN for a
sadhaka of the advaita path, for his realization? If so, kindly help me
with the verses and the reference to the original text.
I have immense value for our shastras and its import and I do have my point
which I am not sure if it is being made clear as well as I intend to. The
answers to my above queries from you, would definitely help address the
Sri Gurubhyo Nama!
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>wrote:
> Hari OM, Umashankar ji,
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Umashankar V <urshankar at gmail.com>
> >> Can you please answer this - was Veda, pramana for the six systems? Is
> > there any pramana in the Veda for niriswara vada? It is wrong to claim
> > any one of the six systems including saankhya, denied Ishwara.
> Its not a claim, its a fact within the teaching of Samkhya itself. If
> you think it is wrong, you should have your reasons as to why they are
> wrong and perhaps prove it out even to the wikipaedia
> authors, which is your easiest lookup if in doubt.
> > If you think any of the six systems denied Ishwara, please give me the
> > pramana.
> This demand is as good as my asking you to give me a Veda pramANa to
> prove that Samkhya acknowledges Ishvara. You will appreciate that
> although all orthodox systems use Vedas as
> pramANa, there are umpteen differences among them, including within
> Vedanta branches! Will even a dvaita pramANa of the Veda that you're
> different from paramAtman do you any good?
> > Kindly quote the authority
> It has been discussed many times on this list itself. That a Guru
> needs to be shrotriya is a well known fact among all traditionalists.
> That tradition is a quotation of authority. If still in doubt, pick up
> any work of Bhagavatpada like Upadesha Sahasri or Vivekachudamani and
> refer whom the shishya should approach for j~nAna after developing
> sAdhana cAtuShTaya.
> > What do you mean by strictest tradition, what is Samskrit equivalent to
> > term?
> The strictest of tradition means those who follow the tradition
> strictly and not for namesake as things have deteriorated today. The
> sanskrit equivalent will have to be sampradAya or parampara.
> and who said that there is the strictest tradition, stricter tradition
> > and strict tradition?
> Who needs to tell anyone when the pratyaksha pramANa shows differences
> in following across various temples and maThAs? Do you think everyone
> is following the same thing everywhere in India?
> Are these these three traditions within the shrotriya
> > tradition?
> Why ask me when you have categorized yourself into three and restricted
> Where is the Veda pramana for ochre robes??
> Its included in the traditional saMnyAsa dIkshA. Why should I refer to
> Vedas for everything when the sampradAya is the guideline?
> > Sir, the same acharya has told in His Bhajagovindam that there are even
> > folks who wear ochre robes 'udara nimittam'..
> Using Bhajagovindam as a proof, are we to chant Govinda's name and
> avoid all other sAdhana as prescribed by Shankaracarya?
> Gurupurnima is supposed to be
> > Vyasa purnima because Sri Vyasa Maharshi was Adi Guru and he was not a
> > sanyasi but a grhasta and was not known to wear ochre robes.
> Maharshi Vyasa was a vAnaprasthA.
> Does your
> > strictest tradition eliminate Sri veda Vyasa?
> Why should it? Being shrotriya has to do with having studied what Veda
> Vyasa categorized!
> I know, this is what they
> > teach out there in Rshikesh, its a pity..
> To elaborate strictness further, Sringeri pITha has always been
> occupied by someone who had not taken to gRRihastAshrama. In
> comparison to other traditional maThAs, its stricter. I'd be
> surprised if you disagreed. Similarly, the ashram I talk of at
> Rishikesh is a reputed ashram that initiates and teaches only
> naiShTika brahmacAris. Its a traditional process they follow and in
> sense, its strict too. Its an insult to call such a paramparA as a
> pity. Its not a pity, its sampradAya. What is a pity indeed is that we
> are ready to throw away the entire traditional teaching today
> for the sake of following what we deem fit and justified. Its not for
> no reason that prasthAna trayA has the word prasthAna. One has to be
> committed to *leave* this world of attachments for
> j~nAna mArga.
> > Sir, I beg to differ. Sri Bhagavatpada himself offered pranams to the
> > chandala and said he is indeed guru who taught him a very important
> > of advaita. Did Sri Bhagavatpada violate his own norms that he laid down?
> That cAnDAla was Shiva himself that Bhagavatpada saw.
> > Many have attained Self Realization by the grace of Bhagavan Sri Ramana,
> > no standards of tradition can one lose such a Guru if one does get the
> > bhagyam to be enveloped by His grace. Will you advise the contrary? Is
> > Bhagavan Ramana not a Guru?
> Bhagavan Ramana was an avadhoota and even the tradition recognizes it so.
> What about the 24 gurus mentioned by Sri
> > Dattatreya?
> Interesting question. Dattatreya considered even a prostitute a guru.
> Do you think thats acceptable to the tradition then? Mind you, she was
> not considered a j~nAni either.
> Do you acknowlede Dattatreya the Shrotriya, sir?
> I think you're stuck on this keyword shrotriya. So I offer my
> clarification herewith: its immaterial what I acknowledge or don't
> acknowledge, I'm only mentioning what the tradition as set by
> Bhagavatpada Shankaracarya says. If you have issues with that word,
> you have issues with the tradition, not me. Else, the onus is on you
> to prove from within_the_tradition that shrotriya guru is
> not necessary at all. For what its worth, Dattatreya is an avAtara,
> where does such a question arise there?
> > Bhagavan Ramana has not advised anybody to read prastAna trya. He did not
> > conduct classes, issue certificates or put any preposterous conditions
> > mukti. He did not, nor did he pack off any of his disciples to these
> > or training centres run by the know-alls. He did not even acknowledge
> > kind of institutionalized guru-sishya mechanism. How many muktas have
> > out of those groups that apotheosized reading of prastAna trya?
> Reading? Where do you get this that the tradition recommends reading
> the prasthAna trayA? Shankaracarya says that even if you're
> well-versed in vyAkaraNa, you're not to approach the
> shAstrAs yourself, without a Guru to teach. To me, all people in the
> shrotriya tradition are sure to reach moksha and several are known to
> be realized. Anyhow, the question is not whether the
> guru is brahmaniShTA for the shishya, but whether he is eligible to
> teach by which shishya can realize.
> Are you
> > aware of how many people got mukti by the Grace of Sri Bhagavan Ramana?
> Why should that be of my interest? In any case, Krishna answers this
> across the board: kascit dhIrA.
> > you not aware of the story of Veda khyata ?
> I'm not sure I am.
> I can personally show you
> > atleast 25 people who took to PrastAna Trya promoters seriously,
> I don't know what "prasthAna trayA" promoters mean here.
> spent their
> > lifetime for it and not yet sure of their mukti.
> So? Are you saying that they have studied the entire prasthAna traya,
> understood it thoroughly through guru paramparA in a committed
> lifetime and have no doubts whatsoever in their
> manana? If they do have doubts, they are still walking the path. No
> path is going to give anyone overnight results unless he is an
> uttamottama adhikAri.
> Reading PrastAna Trya is
> > neither necessary condition nor a sufficient condition for mukti. If this
> > statement is wrong, Sri Ramana is wrong.
> Agreed. Reading is neither necessary nor sufficient. The path is made
> up of shravaNa-manana-niddhidhyAsana.
> > Who is the Lion in your analogy? How does a Shrotriya use the lion and
> > are others doomed to fail in using the lion? Where is the clue?
> The lion is the lion. Its not an analogy with equivalent figures. Its
> an analogy used in the traditional works to say that the way a person
> in the dream can wake up with fear in this world though a
> lion is chasing him in the dream world, so too this mAyA world tools
> of duality can give rise to nondual j~nAna. That is the clue and the
> story in its entirety. This was a comment in response to your saying
> "A person in duality, in maya, can never PROVE non-duality with dual
> devices at disposal wihtin this world." and has nothing to do with
> anyone dooming to fail.
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
> [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list