[Advaita-l] 'Ishwaro'ham' and 'IshwarabhAvaH'
rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Fri Sep 20 04:10:13 CDT 2013
It is not enough to have sraddha. We should actually go by pramanas. You
can trust your guru's good intentions, character and vast knowledge but
unless you know he is omniscient, how can you know he is inerrant? Even if
he is inerrant, how can you be sure that you you understood everything he
said correctly? If you pick up a wrong concept from your guru, it will
stay on. We, therefore, have the responsibility to correct our knowledge.
That is why we have the system of pramanas.
Though you say that I have a wrong understanding, it is a matter of fact
that not long ago traditional scholars on this forum argued that the Lord's
form is made of five elements. I quoted Madhusudana where he clearly says
that the Lord's form is apanchabautika or not made of five elements. It
shows that traditional scholars also can have misunderstanding of their
tradition and should be corrected. Let us put our emphasis on genuine
scholarship and intellectual honesty rather than creating cult.. It will do
our dharma a great deal of good .
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Swamisarvabhutananda <
swami.sarvabhutananda at gmail.com> wrote:
> The methodology of unfolding BrahmajnAnam has a prerequisite of
> This great status includes 'shraddA in Sruti,sharddA in the Guru'
> Otherwise one turns out to be a vidandAvAdi or a jalpA vAdi.
> The unfold meant of BrahmajnAnam is so perfect and one has to blame
> oneself if not understood and continue to be a poorvapakshI.
> I enjoy the purvapaksha siddhAnta in this forum.
> Sent from my iPad
> WISHES AND LOVE
> SWAMI SARVABHUTANANDA
> On 20-Sep-2013, at 10:39 AM, balagopal ramakrishnan <rbalpal at yahoo.co.in>
> > Dear Rajaram Venkataramani,
> >>>> This "fall down", "saviour" etc. are good initial sentiments.
> > Examples are meant to convey certain aspect; not for enquiring further
> with 'whys' & 'hows'. It will lead to more confusion and also..
> >>>>> When we ask who fell down, who saves, why did he allow me to fall
> etc. these sentiments will not persist.
> > ... leads to infinite regression
> >>>> You have not answered the key questions in yes or no format.
> >>>> Hence, I don't know your position clearly on Lord's form as much as I
> know Madhusudana's.
> > I 'm repeating for your convenience the following:
> >>> 1. Is the lord's body made of five elements?
> >>> 2. Is the lord's body made of subtle elements?
> >>> 3. Is the Lord actually embodied as we are?
> > Lord shortchanged the subtle and gross unlike me to appear. I see him
> embodied because of my ignorance.
> >>> Is there a real relationship between the Lord and His body?
> > When the body of the Lord is an appearance (due to my ignorance) what
> relationship can one cast!
> >>> Am I an advaitin?
> > Mine is for 'vasanakshayam'. i.e work in progress.
> > Regards
> > Balagopal
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > 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
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list