[Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami
kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 23 12:40:12 CST 2017
I will divulge the full credentials of the scholar, you may pose any questions you may have. No, I don't know anything about ganapathi muni. Because I am not aware of any of his notable works in the field. However I know that he regularly comes up in discussion related to RM, by RM's own sources.
So you are saying that any body who is not a Vedantin, even such a one can get mukti. That's interesting. So mukti is not limited to Veda / Vedanta. I also have a slight doubt here. Mukti as I understand is dependent on jnana nishta. Jnana nishtha is basically abidance in mahavAkya. So in this janma, if not an elaborate study, at least mahavAkya should be contemplated upon. Is it not? For that a guru is necessary or not? Or if you say mahavaakya is not necessary, then the Vedas / Vedanta takes a back seat because jnana is independent of it.
In order to continue what was unfinished, we have to continue in the * same order *. If I am going to Kashmir from Bangalore, I can't tread one route today and change the route tomorrow. I have to continue in the same path until I reach the destination. Until and unless one studies Vedanta in this birth(at least a little), there is no way to conclude that a person would have studied it in previous births. Suppose I have read a book today and I want to write a review of that. But for some reason, I couldn't complete it today so I delay it till tomorrow. Tomorrow when I get up, I have to write the review to the book that I read yesterday, not any other. I can't say that my review is Independent of the book itself.
Jnana is dependent on Vedanta. So a jnAni would necessarily have to be a Vedantin because there can be no effect without a cause. The effect cannot be independent of the cause. Further many on this forum opine that we cannot conclude if a person is jnAni or not. So there is no consensus on this matter.
yo vedAdau svaraH prokto vedAnte cha pratiShThitaH |
tasya prakRRiti-lInasya yaH parassa maheshvaraH ||
From: Praveen R. Bhat
Sent: Monday 23 January 2017 11:08 PM
To: Kripa Shankar
Cc: Advaita discussion group for Advaita Vedanta; Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Kripa Shankar <kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com> wrote:
I am withholding all my comments / opinions until next week because I am planning to meet a scholar. After that I will post everything that transpires. Basically, I am trying to understand the intricacies of the Vedic construct. what falls within the vedic school and what does not.
Be forewarned that I would be free to take the same stance as you do and question scholarship, since RM has been established as Bhagavan, no less, by a great orthodox traditional scholar Kavyakantha Ganapati Muni who was well-versed in all Vedas and all shastras. So I hope you find someone more qualified than Ganapati Muni to comment on RM to your liking! And I presume that since you come off as someone who has respect for the orthodox tradition, you would know who Ganapati Muni was.
For example, there is upanayana ceremony. It should be done in a certain way. I can't put the yajnopavita in a reverse fashion or upside down. The shastra alone decides how it has to be done.
Just giving an example doesn't help, it should fit the exemplified. RM did nothing of the sort.
similarly, I want to know if the scriptures accept that, with no prior cause could an effect take place? Could someone become a Vedantin without studying it?
This is a question with an answer hidden within, because it is wrongly phrased. No one said that one can become a Vedantin without studying it, but one can be mukta *without studying it in this janma*.
Could the impetus of previous janma work it's way through in this janma by an accident?
Please understand that the accident was not the hetu for the jnAna. Neither RM nor Vedanta says that. jnAna is only due to Vedanta. Such are only reasons for a kalyAnakRt to continue where he left of in earlier janma.
I am mildly familiar with RM and his cult. I am convinced that his teachings are far from Vedanta.
Many of us here are mildly familiar with a lot of things under the sun, but we don't go all out calling them as bogus.
But I don't want to argue on philosophy because it will become subjective. But now that I come to think of it, it is worthwhile to add a few points on that as well.
Whatever gave you the idea that it is objective now!
But the key criterion is whether a traditional Vedantin would accept RM as a fellow vedantin on a fundamental level.
This has been the key criterion since day one of your questioning RM and answered many times since day one as YES, if you mean about RM's being jnAni/ mukta. No one claimed that He was an orthodox Vedanta teacher though.
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list