On Being A Brahmin

[KRN]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Then there is no point in debating further, and as I understand, that particular section is not for debates.

Another reason behind my leaving that thread was, Sri tks himself said something like he's disinclined to debate, rather his purpose in opening the thread was to periodically update it with his meanderings on the subject, sort of blog-like. I am writing from memory, this is the impression I got from his words.

 

[KRN]

While on the topic of Shankaracharya's works, I don't claim to be a scholar in Advaita. But I like reading these works as much for the aesthetics (the beauty of his writing style) as well as for the philosophical content in it. Even if I might disagree with some of the ideas, the style is captivating enough.

 

[a-TB]

I have not seen here any prior discussion on the Lord with positive vs negative qualities. As you know, I have been an occasional visitor here, until recently. If you can share any links, I will be glad to go thru.

Regarding the conversation I had with Sri tks, it had nothing to do with the Lord having positive vs negative qualities. if I remember correctly, he was stating that Adi Sankara would not have used words like Moodha in his works - so I produced quotations from his works, including the Mandukya Karika and the Brahma Sutra Bhashyam. He wrote a copious reply but only partially touching on my points (and totally ignoring the quote I provided from Brahmasutra Bhashyam) which seemed rambling and all about his personal interpretation of Advaita. Also he attributed the "staged evolution" to moksha via "Saguna Brahman" to me, which made me realize that he has perhaps not gone through the Brahma Sutra Bhashyam at all. Then there is no point in debating further, and as I understand, that particular section is not for debates. So I said goodbye and left the conversation then and there. I have no issue with him (or anyone else) producing their personal interpretation of Advaita or of Hinduism. But as far as Sankaracharya's Advaita is concerned, his Brahma Sutra Bhashyam is the cornerstone and not works like Bhaja Govindam which are of doubtful authorship eventhough great in their own way. I have not been following that thread afterwards.



I totally agree with you there.

Mr KRN,

You are right, My bad, I did not carefully check and the discussion you had earlier was not about Lord having positive and negative qualities.

My critique is about a larger point that I did not express well. Hope you dont mind

You have a lot info in your memory with instant recall. You were able to produce a counter example for Lord's names. That is wonderful but what I see is that you are happy with translation level only and do not care to know or even curious about the in depth meaning of what that may mean.

So you say God gives us pride. But at many places pride (I take it as ego driven pride) is given a negative view, as noted by Renuka Madam. Similarly you said Sankara called people names like Moodamathe meaning fool etc. Or Siva is called a leader of robber. But if any explanation is offered you dismiss that as some personal interpretation. And you have no explanation of your own of the anomaly.

Are these translations legit into English and to be believed as is? What is the difference between a person accepting these logical flaws as is and the person who argues that we are all sinners because Eve ate an apple thoudands of years ago.

In the other discussion you provided two quotes from two sources. When one was refuted you went away in a debating section (that section is under debates only) and you are not known to walk away from point based debates. So I took that to mean you had nothing more to refute.

Anyway I am interested to hear what you mentioned about 'staged evolution'. It may be a translation issue of words of Saknara may be. What is the real meaning is what I want to know because Brahman is supposed to be one without second. How can it evolve?

This is chit-chat section. So digression is OK. Topic is about Brahmin and not Brhman. So I will open a new thread in this section. I will appreciate sharing what you know about staged evolution.

Thanks

 

[KRN]

Mr KRN,

You are right, My bad, I did not carefully check and the discussion you had earlier was not about Lord having positive and negative qualities.

My critique is about a larger point that I did not express well. Hope you dont mind

You have a lot info in your memory with instant recall. You were able to produce a counter example for Lord's names. That is wonderful but what I see is that you are happy with translation level only and do not care to know or even curious about the in depth meaning of what that may mean.

No No. You have misunderstood me completely.

The depth to which I go into a response, depends on various factors. In the instant case, my response was prompted by a single line at the end of madame renuka's message. So my response was necessarily brief. But such works like the Vishnu Sahasranama have gone through the hands of a lot of Saints, who have written in-depth meanings, interpretations - and the Bhashyas of Sankara, Parasara Bhatta, and a host of other saints are available to us. I have a personal connect with the "in depth meanings" provided by Sankara and Parasara Bhatta, especially - and have derived considerable pleasure and edification from their perusal, over decades. But unless madame renuka expressed a counter interest in discussing the matter, why should I bother going into all that? If a person tells you that a collection of names appear gibberish to him, would you try giving him the plain meaning of the names, or would you do a Bhashyam, covering several pages, in chit chat section??

Moreover, I am presently on travel, with access to a smart phone, and I would prefer to leave long winded writeups to the time when I have access to a PC or Laptop. I am writing this long note only because of your great support to me in the past and because I somehow sense a hurt feeling in your message (though I cannot make out why you should feel so )

So you say God gives us pride. But at many places pride (I take it as ego driven pride) is given a negative view, as noted by Renuka Madam. Similarly you said Sankara called people names like Moodamathe meaning fool etc. Or Siva is called a leader of robber. But if any explanation is offered you dismiss that as some personal interpretation. And you have no explanation of your own of the anomaly.

I didnt say Sankara called people Moodamathe. It occurs in the first slokam of the work Mohamudgaram, of doubtful authorship, and Sri Tks stated in his initial post that Sankara would not have used the word - that it is a derogatory word. I then responded with the quotations just as a matter of curiosity - just like how I gave the quote in this thread. Now as regards whether such words are derogatory or not, it depends on a lot of factors, like the context and I think I have provided my view on this matter in that thread. I see NO ISSUE in Sankara using such words - I have a clear explanation of my own - based on my perusal of Sankaracharya's works - and there is no anomaly - and had the conversation developed into a debate I would have provided more details of my own.

It all depends on how a debate goes, the receptivity of the other, and many other things.

Are these translations legit into English and to be believed as is? What is the difference between a person accepting these logical flaws as is and the person who argues that we are all sinners because Eve ate an apple thoudands of years ago.

A thing appears a logical flaw only as long as a person is dealing with insufficient information. Why don't you collect more information - peruse the Bhashyas of these works (translations easily available online or for purchase) - study the interpretations provided by the saints of the past - and draw your conclusions afterwards?

In the other discussion you provided two quotes from two sources. When one was refuted you went away in a debating section (that section is under debates only) and you are not known to walk away from point based debates. So I took that to mean you had nothing more to refute.

I thought I gave three quotes, perhaps I missed one. Anyone can verify against Sankara Bhashyas that they are authentic quotes. There is nothing to refute - neither quote was refuted. If I remember correctly, Sri tks wrote a long reply, referring to one quote in passing, while ignoring the other.

As I mentioned yesterday, I walked away because Sri tks expressed his disinclination to indulge in a debate and clearly stated that his intention was to simply, periodically, update the thread with his thoughts on the subject. I have seen such bloglike updates from others - like TBT ji for example - and understood the point and let it go. As regards the section, maybe I was mistaken in thinking that the section was purely for religious updates. I am rather poor in remembering such demarcations - like what you said below - of digressions being allowed in chit chat section.
But most importantly If a person is disinterested in a debate it is not in my nature to goad him, that too when he has been only occasionally visiting this forum.

Anyway I am interested to hear what you mentioned about 'staged evolution'. It may be a translation issue of words of Saknara may be. What is the real meaning is what I want to know because Brahman is supposed to be one without second. How can it evolve?

It is not evolution of Brahman. This is a topic that require some detailed treatment if I have to ensure that it is fully understood. To put it very very simply, it means -

Through unremitting Bhakti and remembrance of (Saguna Brahman - like Vishnu, Siva etc) at the time of death, a soul will reach the abode of the Devata where he will remain until Pralaya, when he will attain Nirguna Brahman along with the Devata (him/it) self. This is staged evolution to moksha, where a soul leaves the earth (not to come back again) but has not yet attained moksha until the final merger with he Nirguna Brahman.

This is a very simplistic explanation and for those scholars among members, please see the above disclaimer and the fact that I am severely constrained by smart phone

This is chit-chat section. So digression is OK. Topic is about Brahmin and not Brhman. So I will open a new thread in this section. I will appreciate sharing you know about staged evolution. ,

Thanks
[/QUOTE]

 

[KRN]

Mr KRN,

You are right, My bad, I did not carefully check and the discussion you had earlier was not about Lord having positive and negative qualities.

My critique is about a larger point that I did not express well. Hope you dont mind

You have a lot info in your memory with instant recall. You were able to produce a counter example for Lord's names. That is wonderful but what I see is that you are happy with translation level only and do not care to know or even curious about the in depth meaning of what that may mean.

So you say God gives us pride. But at many places pride (I take it as ego driven pride) is given a negative view, as noted by Renuka Madam. Similarly you said Sankara called people names like Moodamathe meaning fool etc. Or Siva is called a leader of robber. But if any explanation is offered you dismiss that as some personal interpretation. And you have no explanation of your own of the anomaly.

I again read your post and can understand your point better now.

I don't see any anomaly here since I can see how it all fits in. But to write it here, in detail would not be an easy task as I would need to collect my thoughts. So I will leave that matter aside for now.

Personal interpretations are available dime a dozen. If you see a work like the Gita, for example, there are hundreds of varying interpretations. I have seen Islamic students (In Peace Channel) smartly trying to interpret our scriptures to align with their beliefs. A very intelligent person can play around a lot,with the Gita or the Bhaja Govindam, providing many creative interpretations. I am not saying that is wrong. But imo, we need to see which interpretations are in alignment with the canon, and follow them. For example, if we accept that Sankara has written Bhaja Govindam, then we cannot interpret his works in a way different from what he has outlined in the Brahmasutra or Upanishad Bhashyas.

 

[KRN]

I checked that conversation in the dukrinjkarane thread after a long time and noticed that I had in fact offered there a detailed explanation for Adi Sankara possibly writing this work in the course of his fight with the logicians, mimamsakas. That again, is a personal interpretation, and entirely original, as I can honestly say

I see that the third quote I gave in that thread didn't have references. I am sure it is from Brahmasutra Bhashyam. If anyone is interested in knowing the exact location of the quote in Sankaracharya's works, let me know - I will get back to you after checking.

 

[KRN]

While rereading that conversation again, I can't help noticing a very condescending / patronizing / dismissive tone in his messages to me, which is wholly inappropriate in the context of the topic (Bhaja Govindam) as well as considering that his reply was laced with rambling platitudes in response to my pointed messages with quotations and the like. This is not meant to be personal, but in a conversation, the tone of the message does matter a lot. Undoubtedly his tone also made me leave the conversation. Our TBT ji who has also been posting very entertaining blogs here, has always maintained exemplary politeness in our conversations. I remember a heated debate between TBT ji and myself lasting for a week or so, at the end of which we parted good friends.

 

[a-TB]

No No. You have misunderstood me completely.

The depth to which I go into a response, depends on various factors. In the instant case, my response was prompted by a single line at the end of madame renuka's message. So my response was necessarily brief. But such works like the Vishnu Sahasranama have gone through the hands of a lot of Saints, who have written in-depth meanings, interpretations - and the Bhashyas of Sankara, Parasara Bhatta, and a host of other saints are available to us. I have a personal connect with the "in depth meanings" provided by Sankara and Parasara Bhatta, especially - and have derived considerable pleasure and edification from their perusal, over decades. But unless madame renuka expressed a counter interest in discussing the matter, why should I bother going into all that? If a person tells you that a collection of names appear gibberish to him, would you try giving him the plain meaning of the names, or would you do a Bhashyam, covering several pages, in chit chat section??

Moreover, I am presently on travel, with access to a smart phone, and I would prefer to leave long winded writeups to the time when I have access to a PC or Laptop. I am writing this long note only because of your great support to me in the past and because I somehow sense a hurt feeling in your message (though I cannot make out why you should feel so )



I didnt say Sankara called people Moodamathe. It occurs in the first slokam of the work Mohamudgaram, of doubtful authorship, and Sri Tks stated in his initial post that Sankara would not have used the word - that it is a derogatory word. I then responded with the quotations just as a matter of curiosity - just like how I gave the quote in this thread. Now as regards whether such words are derogatory or not, it depends on a lot of factors, like the context and I think I have provided my view on this matter in that thread. I see NO ISSUE in Sankara using such words - I have a clear explanation of my own - based on my perusal of Sankaracharya's works - and there is no anomaly - and had the conversation developed into a debate I would have provided more details of my own.

It all depends on how a debate goes, the receptivity of the other, and many other things.



A thing appears a logical flaw only as long as a person is dealing with insufficient information. Why don't you collect more information - peruse the Bhashyas of these works (translations easily available online or for purchase) - study the interpretations provided by the saints of the past - and draw your conclusions afterwards?



I thought I gave three quotes, perhaps I missed one. Anyone can verify against Sankara Bhashyas that they are authentic quotes. There is nothing to refute - neither quote was refuted. If I remember correctly, Sri tks wrote a long reply, referring to one quote in passing, while ignoring the other.

As I mentioned yesterday, I walked away because Sri tks expressed his disinclination to indulge in a debate and clearly stated that his intention was to simply, periodically, update the thread with his thoughts on the subject. I have seen such bloglike updates from others - like TBT ji for example - and understood the point and let it go. As regards the section, maybe I was mistaken in thinking that the section was purely for religious updates. I am rather poor in remembering such demarcations - like what you said below - of digressions being allowed in chit chat section.
But most importantly If a person is disinterested in a debate it is not in my nature to goad him, that too when he has been only occasionally visiting this forum.



It is not evolution of Brahman. This is a topic that require some detailed treatment if I have to ensure that it is fully understood. To put it very very simply, it means -

Through unremitting Bhakti and remembrance of (Saguna Brahman - like Vishnu, Siva etc) at the time of death, a soul will reach the abode of the Devata where he will remain until Pralaya, when he will attain Nirguna Brahman along with the Devata (him/it) self. This is staged evolution to moksha, where a soul leaves the earth (not to come back again) but has not yet attained moksha until the final merger with he Nirguna Brahman.

This is a very simplistic explanation and for those scholars among members, please see the above disclaimer and the fact that I am severely constrained by smart phone



Thanks

[/QUOTE]

Thanks for taking time to write a long reply on your phone. There was no urgency but I appreciate your sincerity to respond

I understand what you mean. Yes, you cannot write more details in your initial response. But I am more interested in the content - how to resolve logical fallacies. If the Lord is the giver of Pride - why does he do that and then destroys it? If you say it is all some game (leela?) that is unsatisfactory.

Mr tks has given an entirely different way to interpret the word Moodamathe in that thread and it is logical and reasonable. He quotes the Gita, upanishad and sankara's work etc. and claims there are not personal interpretation. So if two people claim they have some training in similar areas it would have been a good for me to see differing points of view of the same topic area.

We can drop the discussion of that thread entirely since I have opened another thread to know what your views are. I respect your decision to not debate there further.

 

[a-TB]

I checked that conversation in the dukrinjkarane thread after a long time and noticed that I had in fact offered there a detailed explanation for Adi Sankara possibly writing this work in the course of his fight with the logicians, mimamsakas. That again, is a personal interpretation, and entirely original, as I can honestly say

I see that the third quote I gave in that thread didn't have references. I am sure it is from Brahmasutra Bhashyam. If anyone is interested in knowing the exact location of the quote in Sankaracharya's works, let me know - I will get back to you after checking.

Hard to reconcile that an evolved person would be fighting with logicians etc. That is for someone with an ego. In fact one of the Whatsapp group had a video of Prime Minister Modi talking about discussion between Sankara and one Mandana Mishra wife of Mishra moderating. PM was talking about debates ought to be. There is no ego or emotion involved. So your set up does not sit well with my understanding

 

[a-TB]

I checked that conversation in the dukrinjkarane thread after a long time and noticed that I had in fact offered there a detailed explanation for Adi Sankara possibly writing this work in the course of his fight with the logicians, mimamsakas. That again, is a personal interpretation, and entirely original, as I can honestly say

I see that the third quote I gave in that thread didn't have references. I am sure it is from Brahmasutra Bhashyam. If anyone is interested in knowing the exact location of the quote in Sankaracharya's works, let me know - I will get back to you after checking.

Please provide reference to all the quotes. I only save select threads and conversations with select people. I hope to spend more time on such topics after retirement

 

[a-TB]

I again read your post and can understand your point better now.

I don't see any anomaly here since I can see how it all fits in. But to write it here, in detail would not be an easy task as I would need to collect my thoughts. So I will leave that matter aside for now.

Personal interpretations are available dime a dozen. If you see a work like the Gita, for example, there are hundreds of varying interpretations. I have seen Islamic students (In Peace Channel) smartly trying to interpret our scriptures to align with their beliefs. A very intelligent person can play around a lot,with the Gita or the Bhaja Govindam, providing many creative interpretations. I am not saying that is wrong. But imo, we need to see which interpretations are in alignment with the canon, and follow them. For example, if we accept that Sankara has written Bhaja Govindam, then we cannot interpret his works in a way different from what he has outlined in the Brahmasutra or Upanishad Bhashyas.

You may be jumping to conclusions about that thread without reading because Mr tks referes to Sankara's work and Upanishad extensively and claims what is presented is not his original views

 

[Jaykay767]

Even though I differ with Jaykay ji on his political views, his posts on other topics, like the above, are very interesting. Jaykay ji, hope you will return soon and share more posts like this (but, a humble suggestion, please minimize political posts )

KRN Ji,
Thanks and appreciate your comments !
Just back from my mini vacation from this forum in my retirement ! LoL
it just so happens we were/are in the election season, so my posts on politics are higher, but normally it is not the case,

Jaykay.

 

[a-TB]

While rereading that conversation again, I can't help noticing a very condescending / patronizing / dismissive tone in his messages to me, which is wholly inappropriate in the context of the topic (Bhaja Govindam) as well as considering that his reply was laced with rambling platitudes in response to my pointed messages with quotations and the like. This is not meant to be personal, but in a conversation, the tone of the message does matter a lot. Undoubtedly his tone also made me leave the conversation. Our TBT ji who has also been posting very entertaining blogs here, has always maintained exemplary politeness in our conversations. I remember a heated debate between TBT ji and myself lasting for a week or so, at the end of which we parted good friends.

I can only talking about content of a post. Feelings etc are best taken up on a private message basis.

There was no overt statements for me to note any 'tone'. Someone can say the same about my messages or your messages and it is hard to discuss that. Also if the other person is not reading or participating to defend it is not right for me to talk about this further.

In case of Mr TBT: Yes, he is polite. You were trying to correct him on a sanskrit word and its meaning. After long exchanges he seemed to agree and politely went back to his original meaning.

In case of Mr tks: It is different. You provided an interpretation and he rejected it with a detailed response to one of your points quoting Sankara and something called Karika of his Guru's Guru. When someone takes time to provide a detailed response , that is being respectful at least to that extent. That is all we can say. Anymore we cannot discuss here

There are many people in the forum who are well read like you. There was one Mr Sangom who had wildly different views and challenged everything. I got along well with him though he was not the most popular here. There used to be one Mr Iyer who is expert in rituals, Vedas, etc. He is 90+ . But he had a style that did not work with some people. I make allowances for certain things because they have something useful to add here.

The only ones I have challenged are people with only appearance of knowledge with no depth but throwing their weight around.

I dont have any issue by the way with copy and paste posts. My concern is overuse of that with no vetting

Anyway I do appreciate your time to engage with me because in challenging you I am learning and it makes me do some searches. So thanks.

 

[KRN]

I can only talking about content of a post. Feelings etc are best taken up on a private message basis.

There was no overt statements for me to note any 'tone'. Someone can say the same about my messages or your messages and it is hard to discuss that. Also if the other person is not reading or participating to defend it is not right for me to talk about this further.

In case of Mr TBT: Yes, he is polite. You were trying to correct him on a sanskrit word and its meaning. After long exchanges he seemed to agree and politely went back to his original meaning.

In case of Mr tks: It is different. You provided an interpretation and he rejected it with a detailed response to one of your points quoting Sankara and something called Karika of his Guru's Guru. When someone takes time to provide a detailed response , that is being respectful at least to that extent. That is all we can say. Anymore we cannot discuss here

There are many people in the forum who are well read like you. There was one Mr Sangom who had wildly different views and challenged everything. I got along well with him though he was not the most popular here. There used to be one Mr Iyer who is expert in rituals, Vedas, etc. He is 90+ . But he had a style that did not work with some people. I make allowances for certain things because they have something useful to add here.

The only ones I have challenged are people with only appearance of knowledge with no depth but throwing their weight around.

I dont have any issue by the way with copy and paste posts. My concern is overuse of that with no vetting

Anyway I do appreciate your time to engage with me because in challenging you I am learning and it makes me do some searches. So thanks.

Let me remind you. You asked me why I walked away from that discussion. You also remarked that I am not known to walk away from a debate. After reading that, I thought I will respond on that angle as well. I always prefer to keep my interactions specific to the topic, and not on personalities or on my feelings. However yesterday I made an exception.

I wonder why you wrote so elaborately, citing the TOPICS of my discussion with TBT/tks, giving the names of all those people, when I was talking about something else. Feelings do matter in any debate. It has got nothing to do with the topic! In response to your query, I referred to how I FELT in those two discussions with different individuals.

 

[KRN]

You may be jumping to conclusions about that thread without reading because Mr tks referes to Sankara's work and Upanishad extensively and claims what is presented is not his original views

No No When I want to refer to Sri tks or his thread, I will clearly write Sri tks/his thread. When I say "For example", it simply means "an example". So pls dont jump into conclusions!

 

[KRN]

KRN Ji,
Thanks and appreciate your comments !
Just back from my mini vacation from this forum in my retirement ! LoL
it just so happens we were/are in the election season, so my posts on politics are higher, but normally it is not the case,

Jaykay.

Jaykay ji,
Nice to see you back. I had learnt a few things from our discussion on the Rafale deal. Hope to continue

 

[KRN]

Hard to reconcile that an evolved person would be fighting with logicians etc. That is for someone with an ego. In fact one of the Whatsapp group had a video of Prime Minister Modi talking about discussion between Sankara and one Mandana Mishra wife of Mishra moderating. PM was talking about debates ought to be. There is no ego or emotion involved. So your set up does not sit well with my understanding

But I am quite settled with my understanding that Sankara did fight (in the sense of refuting their viewpoints) the logicians etc. If that doesn't sit well with your understanding, fine enough

 

[KRN]

In case of Mr TBT: Yes, he is polite. You were trying to correct him on a sanskrit word and its meaning. After long exchanges he seemed to agree and politely went back to his original meaning.

You are mistaken. Our discussion started off about a Brahmin marriage - related ritual, then branched out onto several other matters, finally ending in the debate on the meaning of a Sanskrit word. He was firm but polite throughout, and we agreed to disagree

 

[tbs]

But I am quite settled with my understanding that Sankara did fight (in the sense of refuting their viewpoints) the logicians etc. If that doesn't sit well with your understanding, fine enough

hi

in real .....sankara mainly fought with buddhists/nasthika dharmas......

 

[KRN]

hi

in real .....sankara mainly fought with buddhists/nasthika dharmas......

You are right Sir. But thats not the point here. Sri a-TB associates fight with ego and concludes that an evolved person like Sankara indulging in fights doesn't sit well in his understanding. His point is (apparently) not about whom Sankara mainly fought with.

 

[tbs]

You are right Sir. But thats not the point here. Sri a-TB associates fight with ego and concludes that an evolved person like Sankara indulging in fights doesn't sit well in his understanding. His point is (apparently) not about whom Sankara mainly fought with.

hi

oh sorry sir...

 

[a-TB]

Even in this forum no one changes anyone's mind. After threads of arguments people end up with their views intact (there are exceptions in rare instances). But people persist in telling their view point here and in regular life because the driver is ego. All teaching talk about someone who has overcome the power of ego. There is an article posted by Mr Praveen just recently about how Ramanujar walked back and forth to receive teaching from Nambi who told him 'Come after I has died' meaning ego has died.

Yet after studies of Vedanta people have their ego ideas project on Saints like Sankara. This is just amazing to me. Why should Sankara care to change anyone's opinion? If he is teaching someone, yes - it makes sense. The whole premise of Sankara going around fighting to get his opinion in is an oxymoron.

 

[KRN]

The

hi

oh sorry sir...
[/QUOTE

There is no need to say sorry, respected TBS garu...

 

[tbs]

The

hi

thanks

 

[KRN]

Yet after studies of Vedanta people have their ego ideas project on Saints like Sankara. This is just amazing to me. Why should Sankara care to change anyone's opinion? If he is teaching someone, yes - it makes sense. The whole premise of Sankara going around fighting to get his opinion in is an oxymoron.

Dear Sri A-TB,
I don't see anyone here except yourself projecting his ego ideas on Sankara. There are others who state that Sankara fought other philosophers. But as far as I can see, nobody else is stating that Sankara did all that due to his ego.