Staged Evolution

[a-TB]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Well, if you dont even know what the term "means to me", then how can you say that you have seen "contradictions" in my "statement"

And if you genuinely want to know how Sankara defines the concept, why don't you stop googling for a while and start studying his works for a change?

Oh I forgot - you had stated earlier that you would start reading those scriptures only after retirement. But perhaps it would be too late by then!



You seem bent upon making blanket accusations without making a single attempt at verifying their veracity first. As far as I am concerned, your integrity is at rock bottom.

Why don't you take up the Gita (now, and not after your retirement) and see the slokas at the very end of the text. There Krishna mentions the kind of people with whom scriptural knowledge should not be shared. And as far as I am concerned, your behaviour here and in other threads fits the bill.

A person who truly reveres the scriptures, would prioritize their study - would not depend on random google searches for his knowledge - nor would he use such tools as google, to try to see contradictions in the scriptures.

One last try:

Answer the contradictions in your understanding as pointed out in Post 23. If you don;t know it is fine. Just admit it.


Please do not waste words.

You just seem to know buzz words but that is no use in debating. You have to show you understand the concepts and can answer the contradictions raised in YOUR understanding in post 23. The more you bring up extraneous items while not directly addressing the issues raised, the more you make it painfully obvious to most readers as to your state of confusion. It is painful to read your response when you show you cannot respond to the questions raised

 

[KRN]

Just to recap ...


The issue raised is only your understanding of the term Krama Mukthi and the contradictions it presents, the way you have stated them.

In the above quoted post you questioned that 'Liberation is instantaneous' and offered the example of Krama Mukthi (which you called staged evolution) as an alternative to something that is not instantaneous .

If your understanding of 'staged evolution;' is not instantaneous then it must mean it is IN TIME ! There can be no other conclusions possible. If you do not agree to this conclusion you are welcome to explain in simple language what you meant.

Well !

In the same breath you ask me "What staged means to you? "

And in the same breath you act as if I already said it is "time bound"

And in the same breath you say you have found "contradictions" in my reply

And in the same breath you say "I didnt answer to the contradictions"

===> All before I had even said a single word

Dream on!

Now your understanding as stated presents several problems

1. Soul evolves (over time) and then merges with Nirguna Brahman. But then Tat Tvam Asi (Soul is Brhaman) is unconditionally stated. There are no evolution over time mentioned. That relationship is here and now. So *your understanding* of Krama Mukthi as you have understood stated them is wrong.

Well where did I ever state my understanding?

Why do you make your own assumptions and push them forth as though "that is my understanding", "my statements" etc? And as though you have found "contradictions" in my unstated "statements"

Are you living in a dream world?

 

[KRN]

2. In this thread itself I stated another contradiction and again reproduced here:

"Here is one more issues with staged evolution. Evolution means in time. There can be no other meaning. If soul has to migrate with Saguna in time and then merge with Nirguna in time later we have a problem. Because Brahman being the creator of time also cannot be controlled by evolution in time. "

You are simply repeating yourself.

As to my response here it is.

Sankara does consider two types of mukti. Sadyomukti (immediate) and Krama mukti (staged evolution). Both are dealt with, in detail in Sankara's works. Instead of making your own wild assumptions and then foisting them on others as though they are their "statements" and then shouting 'contradictions"....

Spend some time in poring over Sankara's works and try to understand why that great man felt the need for a separate "krama mukti".

Without reading Sankara by yourself, it is futile to make vain assumptions as you have been doing here.

I repeat, if a philosopher like Sankara, to whom brevity and simplicity of ideas is paramount, felt the need for a "Krama mukti", it must be for a very good reason.

I have done my part here, viz, showing thru direct quotes from his works that Krama mukti or staged evolution is an integral part of Sankara philosophy.

I do know how the concept of Krama mukti, is different from Sadyo mukti and there are many good translations, through which institutions like RK Math have brought these ideas closer to the general public. But as I already mentioned, scriptures prohibit me from revealing spiritual information with people exhibiting cetain types of behaviour, and sri a-TB's behaviour in this thread fits that bill. As far as I know, scriptures dont prohibit idle banter, but without revealing any more sacred knowledge, which is what I am planning to do with you in future.

Issues raised have nothing to do with the scriptures . They are based solely on your statements here.

By which, of course, you actually mean your imaginings of "my statements" in your dream world.

I have great deal of reverence to time tested scriptures.

Then start making use of a little deal of that reverence, to read Sankara's works directly instead of google search.

 

[KRN]

Regardless I wish you all the best. I have nothing personally against you

But this is the most cliched statement I have ever read. This thread was not addressed to you at all. From the beginning it has been brought before your eyes that the idea of "Staged evolution/krama mukti of a soul" is Sankara's, not mine - and all I have done is to show references to this idea in his works. Hence by questioning it, by raising your so called "contradictions" in it, you were just attempting to raise contradictions in Sankara's philosophy. Still you acted as though you "revere" Sankara, while you were questioning "my understanding" of the concept, by foisting your own conclusions on me, while I have not written anything at all on it myself. You deliberately tried to waste my time, tried to make me repeat myself, and given how precious time is, such repetitive attacks on a person's time is tantamount to an attack on his person - hence what you have indulged in here, is a sort of "personal attack" on me, of the worst kind, because it is not a straight attack, like calling names, which would have been far too obvious. Your behaviour has been obnoxious.

 

[a-TB]

Well !

In the same breath you ask me "What staged means to you? "

And in the same breath you act as if I already said it is "time bound"

And in the same breath you say you have found "contradictions" in my reply

And in the same breath you say "I didnt answer to the contradictions"

===> All before I had even said a single word

Dream on!



Well where did I ever state my understanding?

Why do you make your own assumptions and push them forth as though "that is my understanding", "my statements" etc? And as though you have found "contradictions" in my unstated "statements"

Are you living in a dream world?

I asked what staged means to you to nail down the source of why you are unable to respond to a logical flaw described in plain English. I wanted to take you down a set of logical steps to see why the positions you have taken do not stand the test of basic logic.

You stated your understanding when you proposed Krama Mukthi as alternative that Mukthi is not subject to time. There you have taken a position.



You have not answered the contradictions stated in Post 23. Period .

 

[a-TB]

But this is the most cliched statement I have ever read. This thread was not addressed to you at all. From the beginning it has been brought before your eyes that the idea of "Staged evolution/krama mukti of a soul" is Sankara's, not mine - and all I have done is to show references to this idea in his works. Hence by questioning it, by raising your so called "contradictions" in it, you were just attempting to raise contradictions in Sankara's philosophy. Still you acted as though you "revere" Sankara, while you were questioning "my understanding" of the concept, by foisting your own conclusions on me, while I have not written anything at all on it myself. You deliberately tried to waste my time, tried to make me repeat myself, and given how precious time is, such repetitive attacks on a person's time is tantamount to an attack on his person - hence what you have indulged in here, is a sort of "personal attack" on me, of the worst kind, because it is not a straight attack, like calling names, which would have been far too obvious. Your behaviour has been obnoxious.

This section falls under debating aspects. Anyone can rebut what is stated by anyone. You have been responding to my comments. Plus calling names instead of sticking to the topic. That is not in line with the high standards of decorum required as evidenced by scholarly discussions and debates. I did not want to pull down that and hence wanted to assert to you that my criticism is in what you have written and I have nothing personal against anyone.

Please do not elevate yourself to stating Sankara's philosophy. Even the one book on Bhashya I bought and what I have looked online, Sankatra created debating points by raising many opinions. He made strong case for opposing views and then refuted them while stating his correct interpretation in the end. If you claim you have studied Bhashya your comments here do not reflect that value.

It is kind of ugly to act as a victim in a public forum. No one is putting anything on you. If you have clarity you are welcome to answer the questions raised , refute the points systematically and answer what you meant. Instead we have all these posts, wasted words and wasted time for all. I summarized in Post 23 what the objections are. It is the same raised six months ago in the chit chat section. Sometimes a simple 'I dont know' is perfectly fine and would have saved me and every reader lot of time.

Now you call me obnoxious for raising objections to your logic. Every one of your points in the Bhajagovindam thread have been refuted in one form or the other (in that thread, my prior interactions with you in two threads in the chit chat section and here as well ). It is well within the rules of the forum to attack the logic. . There is a saying "If you cannot take the heat best is to get out of the kitchen'

The problem is that you have taken a teaching topic and are approaching with a religious dogma. That is why understanding and logic takes a back seat.


I will eventually find the answers.

The question that continue to remain is this : Krama Mukthi implies a sequence over time and yet Tatvam Asi is a statement that is unconditionally true without time element the in mix.

The question is not if Krama Mukthi is valid. That was never the question

It is to resolve this paradox. I think Mr tks alluded to a way that may resolve the paradox. I will find the answer from someone who places understanding as a priority.

 

[zebra16]

I do not see any contradiction that there are two paths to liberation, viz. krama paddati and Jeevan Mukhti, the instant liberation.

Tat tvam asi type of mahAvAkyAs (there are actually four of them) are applicable to Jeevan MukthAs who attained/attains liberation in their current life and are alive in the same blood and flesh. Of course it would almost be impossible for the unrealizeds to recognize those.

The vyAdha (the butcher in MahAbhAratA - famous for vyAdha GeetA) is alluded as a realized soul by Sankara in BSB (i think, or somewhere else) who attained realization even without doing any upAsana or study of upaniSads. My memory is faint but I think Adi Sankara says that his realization is due to the puNyams and knowledge gained in previous janmAs and his Atma being already ripe and ready for Mukthi and he becomes a Jeevan MukhtA in the life of vyAdhA.

The other case is that of exclamation of "tat tvam asi" by Uddalaka at his son Svetaketu in ChAndyOgya upaniSad. UddAlakA should be a realized soul to know another realized soul and exclaim tat tvam asi.

PrajnAnam BrahmA, ayam AtmA brahma and aham BramhAsmi also indicate instant realization and a jeevan mukhtA status as a dead corpse wont be making such declarations.

Krama mukhti is the usual norm whether explicitly told by Sankara or not, if we have even slight knowledge and belief in transmigration of soul or the theory of punarjanmam. Sankara clearly states in his teachings that vyAdha could get realization without undertaking or even be eligible for upaniSad studies only because of his puNyams in his previous birth, so even though he might have become realized if he had heard anyone of the four mahAvAkayas, the credit is due to gradual accretion or krama paddathi.

This will also tell why Jeevan mukhtAs do not fall dead on realization but continue to live till the completion of that life...

Nowhere does Sankara or the scriptures say that knowledge of mahAvAkyAs is sine qua non and that it is a must that one must have only tat tvam asi type of realization.

 

[zebra16]

My reading of the BSB leads me to think that krama paddathi is the norm and jeevan mukthi is the exception.

As knowledge is said to burn off the ignorance and lead to instant self realization, there are some instances of Astrophysicists, mathematicians, ace intellectuals etc. making a beeline to Himalayas to get hold of a guru and to have "self realization, here and now" and a fad for tat tvam asi cases but not much success story is heard of them.

Patient reading of scriptures will reveal that getting the Grace (even though aham brahmAsmi) and having achievements in material world are quite different.

The study of life histories of Dharma-vyAdhA, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, RamaNa Maharishi, MahasannidhAnam Sri Chandrasekhara Bharathi, Sri Chandrasekhara Sarawati etc. will stand in good stead in getting Atma bOdhanam than getting views of some casual posters in some forum and comparing and contrasting one casual poster's understanding with another.

 

[KRN]

I do not see any contradiction that there are two paths to liberation, viz. krama paddati and Jeevan Mukhti, the instant liberation.

Tat tvam asi type of mahAvAkyAs (there are actually four of them) are applicable to Jeevan MukthAs who attained/attains liberation in their current life and are alive in the same blood and flesh. Of course it would almost be impossible for the unrealizeds to recognize those.

The vyAdha (the butcher in MahAbhAratA - famous for vyAdha GeetA) is alluded as a realized soul by Sankara in BSB (i think, or somewhere else) who attained realization even without doing any upAsana or study of upaniSads. My memory is faint but I think Adi Sankara says that his realization is due to the puNyams and knowledge gained in previous janmAs and his Atma being already ripe and ready for Mukthi and he becomes a Jeevan MukhtA in the life of vyAdhA.

The other case is that of exclamation of "tat tvam asi" by Uddalaka at his son Svetaketu in ChAndyOgya upaniSad. UddAlakA should be a realized soul to know another realized soul and exclaim tat tvam asi.

PrajnAnam BrahmA, ayam AtmA brahma and aham BramhAsmi also indicate instant realization and a jeevan mukhtA status as a dead corpse wont be making such declarations.

Krama mukhti is the usual norm whether explicitly told by Sankara or not, if we have even slight knowledge and belief in transmigration of soul or the theory of punarjanmam. Sankara clearly states in his teachings that vyAdha could get realization without undertaking or even be eligible for upaniSad studies only because of his puNyams in his previous birth, so even though he might have become realized if he had heard anyone of the four mahAvAkayas, the credit is due to gradual accretion or krama paddathi.

This will also tell why Jeevan mukhtAs do not fall dead on realization but continue to live till the completion of that life...

Nowhere does Sankara or the scriptures say that knowledge of mahAvAkyAs is sine qua non and that it is a must that one must have only tat tvam asi type of realization.

Sir
I fully agree. Your post, although it comes rather late in this thread, is very refreshing and hence most welcome. Logcally speaking, krama mukti is the way forward for all. In the case of the Jeevanmuktas, we really do not see/do not know about the great sadhanas they had undertook in previous lives to reach that state. The aitareya upanishat mentions Rshi Vamadeva who achieved liberation even in his mother's womb! As you had mentioned, the Vyadha and another example - Vidura, were quoted by Sankara right in his bhashyam to the controversial apasudradhikaranam.

Often we see people who have not read Sankara's works first hand, who have a very superficial idea of advaita itself, decrying the Krama paddhatis like worship of Saguna Brahman. In this forum I have seen people who quote Tattwamasyadi vakyas, and act as though they are advaitins and as though they were expressing Sankara's own views, while they deride the Saguna brahman worship. They need to read the Sankara bhashyas first hand, to appreciate the importance given to krama mukti or staged evolution of a soul, through worship of Saguna Brahman, in Sankara's philosophy as well as in Sruti. The entire upasana kanda of the Brahma sutras focus on it, after all !

 

[KRN]

Teachers like Uddhalaka or Yama dharma raja have their own ways of ascertaining whether a rare soul is eligible for Tattwamasyadi instruction. As Katha Up states, aascharyo vaktaa kushalaanu labdhaa Aascharyo jnataa kushalaanushishtah. That is the exception, and not the rule at all. I have also read that Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa asked one of his disciples Narendra to read the Ashtavakra Geeta before him, while he strictly prohibited other disciples from even touching that work.

 

[KRN]

This section falls under debating aspects. Anyone can rebut what is stated by anyone. You have been responding to my comments. Plus calling names instead of sticking to the topic.

As usual, you have been misquoting me. I called your behaviour obnoxious because that is what it is. If I don't call it out here, you would continue to indulge in such tactics with someone else, next time. I referred to your behaviour, but show me where I called you names. You are the one suddenly playing the victim card here, obviously since your obnoxious behaviour has been exposed.
The rest of your message is charvita charvanam and don't merit any response.

 

[a-TB]

As usual, you have been misquoting me. I called your behaviour obnoxious because that is what it is. If I don't call it out here, you would continue to indulge in such tactics with someone else, next time. I referred to your behaviour, but show me where I called you names. You are the one suddenly playing the victim card here, obviously since your obnoxious behaviour has been exposed.
The rest of your message is charvita charvanam and don't merit any response.

This section is for "Philosophical roots to understand the universe , traditions and practices ". It is for debates of content and not for name calling (lazy etc). I cannot further encourage such behaviour by dignifying with detailed responses. There is an expectation of high standards of scholarship in this section. I think Mr Zebra has shown the what by his post. Let us take his lead and rise above the pettiness

 

[a-TB]

I do not see any contradiction that there are two paths to liberation, viz. krama paddati and Jeevan Mukhti, the instant liberation.

Tat tvam asi type of mahAvAkyAs (there are actually four of them) are applicable to Jeevan MukthAs who attained/attains liberation in their current life and are alive in the same blood and flesh. Of course it would almost be impossible for the unrealizeds to recognize those.

The vyAdha (the butcher in MahAbhAratA - famous for vyAdha GeetA) is alluded as a realized soul by Sankara in BSB (i think, or somewhere else) who attained realization even without doing any upAsana or study of upaniSads. My memory is faint but I think Adi Sankara says that his realization is due to the puNyams and knowledge gained in previous janmAs and his Atma being already ripe and ready for Mukthi and he becomes a Jeevan MukhtA in the life of vyAdhA.

The other case is that of exclamation of "tat tvam asi" by Uddalaka at his son Svetaketu in ChAndyOgya upaniSad. UddAlakA should be a realized soul to know another realized soul and exclaim tat tvam asi.

PrajnAnam BrahmA, ayam AtmA brahma and aham BramhAsmi also indicate instant realization and a jeevan mukhtA status as a dead corpse wont be making such declarations.

Krama mukhti is the usual norm whether explicitly told by Sankara or not, if we have even slight knowledge and belief in transmigration of soul or the theory of punarjanmam. Sankara clearly states in his teachings that vyAdha could get realization without undertaking or even be eligible for upaniSad studies only because of his puNyams in his previous birth, so even though he might have become realized if he had heard anyone of the four mahAvAkayas, the credit is due to gradual accretion or krama paddathi.

This will also tell why Jeevan mukhtAs do not fall dead on realization but continue to live till the completion of that life...

Nowhere does Sankara or the scriptures say that knowledge of mahAvAkyAs is sine qua non and that it is a must that one must have only tat tvam asi type of realization.

Thank you Mr Zebra for sharing your knowledge and insights. You have given examples of this Krama Mukthi from many sources. Let me restate my point in the light of what you have shared.

All these Mahavakyas are equations,

They are stated like 2 plus 2 is equal to 4.
The above equation is true no matter where or when. It is timelessly true.


Similarly the 4 Mahavakyas state a fact or truth. It does not refer to time because they are timelessly true. So I am not sure if we can automatically draw the conclusion that they point to instant realization only. And then use another example for time based realization. This is because the statement of fact in the Mahavakyas does not talk about how one attains this Mukthi.

In fact all knowledge, when it takes place is ALWAYS in an instant. Sure the *preparation* to understand a piece of knowledge may take time but knowledge itself is in an instant (and not in time). Hence gaining of knowledge is in an instant. It is not by effort over time.

I read somewhere that when we open our eyes and our mind is tuned we have no choice but not to see (seeing is a piece of knowledge) and it is always in an instant. Same with insights of the mind.

That is why the equation of Mahavakyas are stated as fact without time as a factor or place as a factor.

By assuming that Mahavkyas prescribe one kind of Mukthi and by using other examples as prescribing another form of Mukthi may seem fine. But at an understanding level of the Mahavakyas which are equations, cannot imply prescriptions.

The real question is to resolve the paradox of how Krama Mukthi fits into this notion that knowledge is always in an instant.

Also I can be corrected but I read somewhere that action & time (which is in Prakruthi) is not same as knowledge. It is said somewhere in Gita reference (Chapter 4?) where I came across that knowledge alone liberates, I cannot authoritatively talk about this point that I have paraphrased since i lack the background. If interested I can look for that reference. It was not some blogger but an authentic writing.

If Knowledge alone liberates and knowledge is always in an instant , paradox of Krama Mukthi (whose existence was never in question) still remains.

 

[zebra16]

Thank you Mr Zebra for sharing your knowledge and insights. You have given examples of this Krama Mukthi from many sources. Let me restate my point in the light of what you have shared.

All these Mahavakyas are equations,

They are stated like 2 plus 2 is equal to 4.
The above equation is true no matter where or when. It is timelessly true.


Similarly the 4 Mahavakyas state a fact or truth. It does not refer to time because they are timelessly true. So I am not sure if we can automatically draw the conclusion that they point to instant realization only. And then use another example for time based realization. This is because the statement of fact in the Mahavakyas does not talk about how one attains this Mukthi.

In fact all knowledge, when it takes place is ALWAYS in an instant. Sure the *preparation* to understand a piece of knowledge may take time but knowledge itself is in an instant (and not in time). Hence gaining of knowledge is in an instant. It is not by effort over time.

I read somewhere that when we open our eyes and our mind is tuned we have no choice but not to see (seeing is a piece of knowledge) and it is always in an instant. Same with insights of the mind.

That is why the equation of Mahavakyas are stated as fact without time as a factor or place as a factor.

By assuming that Mahavkyas prescribe one kind of Mukthi and by using other examples as prescribing another form of Mukthi may seem fine. But at an understanding level of the Mahavakyas which are equations, cannot imply prescriptions.

The real question is to resolve the paradox of how Krama Mukthi fits into this notion that knowledge is always in an instant.

Also I can be corrected but I read somewhere that action & time (which is in Prakruthi) is not same as knowledge. It is said somewhere in Gita reference (Chapter 4?) where I came across that knowledge alone liberates, I cannot authoritatively talk about this point that I have paraphrased since i lack the background. If interested I can look for that reference. It was not some blogger but an authentic writing.

If Knowledge alone liberates and knowledge is always in an instant , paradox of Krama Mukthi (whose existence was never in question) still remains.

I will respond to this, but meanwhile, there appears to be to my understanding, some loose ends in your message. I would like to get your response to that so that we are on the same wavelength.

Thanks

 

[zebra16]

All these Mahavakyas are equations,

This appears to be your construct. No one else to my knowledge have said mahavAkyAs are an equation, nor they appear to me as an equation.

It is just a bold declaration, by a great personality who we hold in great esteem and as an authoritative figure in vedAntA. Sruthi itself does not make a claim that there are four mahAvAkyAs. In fact these mahAvAkyAs are not even stand alone mantrAs in the upaniSad, but forms one portion or section of a particular mantrA. But they are capable of standing on their own (like two main clauses in a compound sentence). Rather than being an equation, mahAvAkyAs are like a statement that "Sun is a great ball of fire" made by a very knowledgeable person. We agree with the statement as apparently the statement conforms to our known properties of fire and a spherical object like a ball.

The above is not to be construed as reducing or belittling the importance of mahAvAkyAs in anyway but to just point out that when they were cognized by Rsis alongwith other mantrAs they did not have that "mahAvAkyA" tag, nor is it an equation, nor will it bestow liberation to any and everyone who hears it.

They are stated like 2 plus 2 is equal to 4.

I do not find any mathematical valencies or equivalents you attribute to make it appear as an equation.

 

[zebra16]

If Knowledge alone liberates and knowledge is always in an instant

Can you be a bit more specific and point what or which knowledge are you referring here?

Do you mean (i) knowledge of brahman;
(ii) knowledge of vedAs?
(iii) knowledge of mahAvAkyAs?
(iv) knowledge of advaita?
(v) knowledge that brahman alone is sAswatham and all others are transitory?

This may help me know better why you consider krama mukti as a paradox. Knowledge alone liberates per Sankara, I admit, but liberation is not restricted to persons having vedic knowledge only (again as per Sankara) so clarity here may remove the ambiguity or supposed paradox.

 

[zebra16]

By assuming that Mahavkyas prescribe one kind of Mukthi and by using other examples as prescribing another form of Mukthi may seem fine.

I do not know from where this understanding of two kinds of mukthi originate, but I have to say for me there is only one type of mukthi. By mukthi I mean liberation from this endless cycle of births and deaths or samsaram. One can evolve gradually (which is called krama paddathi) or one can have a spark of light and get instant mukthi.

I may an ordinary average student who without knowing other mathematical means extract the root of 289 as 17 by many trial and error methods and another bright student having advanced mathematical knowledge could extract the root by applying a formula.

The process or procedure are different but the end result is same. Only my methods may be more time consuming.

But at an understanding level of the Mahavakyas which are equations, cannot imply prescriptions.

Again a reference to an equation which I cannot fathom.

 

[KRN]

This section is for "Philosophical roots to understand the universe , traditions and practices ". It is for debates of content and not for name calling (lazy etc).

Indeed this section is for debates, but in a debate opposing arguments need to be put forth. In the past I have indulged in debates with learned scholars like sangom ji, because we had differing views on certain subjects. But I dont see any opposing argument from you - since you, unlike sri tks, already seem to accept my point (in opening this thread) that Krama mukti is part of Sankara philosophy. I say, "you seem to", because you have been opposing the english translation of that word , ostensibly since you could not locate information on that english term through google search, whereas, since you could locate occurrences of the Sanskrit term through google search, you have readily accepted that. Now, if you put forth your own view (any view), on what krama mukti is, according to you, then I could see whether that view is worth countering, worth debating or not. As of now, the only topic that I could think worthy of debating with you, is on the relative usefulness of "google search" as a means (pramaNa) for gaining spiritual knowledge.

You stated that you would start reading the scriptures only after retirement, and it is that attitude that I called lazy. In any case, if that is name-calling, then I could point out many other instances where you have yourself indulged on similar or worser name-calling. So there is no point in your playing out the victim here

 

[a-TB]

This appears to be your construct. No one else to my knowledge have said mahavAkyAs are an equation, nor they appear to me as an equation.

It is just a bold declaration, by a great personality who we hold in great esteem and as an authoritative figure in vedAntA. Sruthi itself does not make a claim that there are four mahAvAkyAs. In fact these mahAvAkyAs are not even stand alone mantrAs in the upaniSad, but forms one portion or section of a particular mantrA. But they are capable of standing on their own (like two main clauses in a compound sentence). Rather than being an equation, mahAvAkyAs are like a statement that "Sun is a great ball of fire" made by a very knowledgeable person. We agree with the statement as apparently the statement conforms to our known properties of fire and a spherical object like a ball.

The above is not to be construed as reducing or belittling the importance of mahAvAkyAs in anyway but to just point out that when they were cognized by Rsis alongwith other mantrAs they did not have that "mahAvAkyA" tag, nor is it an equation, nor will it bestow liberation to any and everyone who hears it.



I do not find any mathematical valencies or equivalents you attribute to make it appear as an equation.

I have come across that usage of equation. Key is the meaning .
The dictionary has one meaning for Equation: "the process of equating one thing with another"
Tattvamasi means Soul = Brahman

The equivalence above is a statement of fact and asserted as truth.

All other Mahavakyas (regardless of what they were called when they appeared) are equating two items. It is not like writing 5=5 which is true but has no value to add.

I am = Brhaman , that is another statement of equivalency.

Not sure I understand what issue you find with that.

 

[a-TB]

Can you be a bit more specific and point what or which knowledge are you referring here?

Do you mean (i) knowledge of brahman;
(ii) knowledge of vedAs?
(iii) knowledge of mahAvAkyAs?
(iv) knowledge of advaita?
(v) knowledge that brahman alone is sAswatham and all others are transitory?

This may help me know better why you consider krama mukti as a paradox. Knowledge alone liberates per Sankara, I admit, but liberation is not restricted to persons having vedic knowledge only (again as per Sankara) so clarity here may remove the ambiguity or supposed paradox.

Knowledge is knowledge of Self . Someone has to teach that since we supposedly have wrong ideas. That knowledge cannot be attained by actions and rituals. I am not saying any of these with real understanding but they seemed right to me ,.

In a way reading Mr tks response to this 'term staged evolution' I think there is a way to resolve the paradox.

Knowledge itself is always at an instant and cannot be gotten by actions.

Let us take you example of a equation (like cube root or some problem). Let us say you take to to library by taking a cab and meeting someone who teaches you to solve the problem and teaching you some ideas of how to solve the problem and you now get it.

Or someone could have come to your home and taught you the same.

In the first case, should you include going by a cab as part of learning? No amount of going by cab can make you know the solution. But cab ride to meet the right person did help. This can be called sequencing.

So someone does good merits and goes to highest of heaven. There Prajapathi teaches the person the truth of self and he realizes. That learning is still instantaneous only

Or they can get that here in earth itself - Jivan mukthi

The paradox is requiring action to gain self knowledge (and get Mukthi) because in all Sankaras teaching in terms of what I read, he never mixes knowledge and rituals for Mukthi


But the action being independent (like going to heaven or going to the library in the other example) and unconnected to learning could resolve the paradox

Realization is still in an instant only. That is the bottom line

 

[a-TB]

Indeed this section is for debates, but in a debate opposing arguments need to be put forth. In the past I have indulged in debates with learned scholars like sangom ji, because we had differing views on certain subjects. But I dont see any opposing argument from you - since you, unlike sri tks, already seem to accept my point (in opening this thread) that Krama mukti is part of Sankara philosophy. I say, "you seem to", because you have been opposing the english translation of that word , ostensibly since you could not locate information on that english term through google search, whereas, since you could locate occurrences of the Sanskrit term through google search, you have readily accepted that. Now, if you put forth your own view (any view), on what krama mukti is, according to you, then I could see whether that view is worth countering, worth debating or not. As of now, the only topic that I could think worthy of debating with you, is on the relative usefulness of "google search" as a means (pramaNa) for gaining spiritual knowledge.

You stated that you would start reading the scriptures only after retirement, and it is that attitude that I called lazy. In any case, if that is name-calling, then I could point out many other instances where you have yourself indulged on similar or worser name-calling. So there is no point in your playing out the victim here

I dont care to be called names directly or implied, I only asked that you respect the intent of the section and say what you must in a chit chat section. I cannot answer to preconceived notions and illogical statements about me here.

I never agreed with your understanding or lack of it (please re-read this thread). I have no issues understanding whatever the teaching are by Sankara when it is authentically presented.

Your posts show that you are approaching the subject more like a religion than one that requires understanding. Hence you argue with religious fervor doling out attacks, notwithstanding all the rationalization. A scholarly person will argue on the merits of points presented.

So with ONLY literal interpretation of what Sankara said is all you seem to want without trying to understand how the statement fits with other teachings (example : Krama Mukthi vs the teaching of how Mukthi is possible ONLY by knowledge, which is always instantaneous). In the prior post I have shared my understanding how it can be resolved.

Besides overuse of Sankara's name in vein appears as if he is your Macchan (bother in law) and leads to silliness after a while which rings hollow.

Google searches, books and teachers are all sources of knowledge. The key is to know when a blog or a book or a teacher is clueless. I may not know much but I can generally find contradictions in understanding. I am not impressed with claims of what studies someone has undertaken. I like to understand what they are saying and see if it is conflict free for starters.

There are great websites available online. I never said they are the ultimate means or the only means. But I can gather enough info to discern confused thinking in this forum for example. i may take up formal studies in the future but to participate here I do not need any further preparation. People with substance explain and do not argue here. Those that argue and bring all kinds of extraneous information tend to be confused.

My intent is not to criticize you as a person. If you want to take this up to talk about me and my behaviour or whatever please feel free to open a thread in the chit chat section. I am not shy and will respond.

Here let us keep the debates at a higher level focused on the subject matter. Please.

 

[KRN]

As mentioned in the beginning of this thread, and repeated several times in between, this thread is opened in response to an earlier thread entitled "Bhaja Govindam" opened by Sri tks, in which he, in the course of several blog-like posts, wrote his interpretation of Sankara's philosophy.

I have refuted certain points therein and responded by providing him quotations directly from Sankara's works, as well as provided screenshots so as to help him as well as anyone else if interested, to pursue the study of Sankara's philosophy, either by referring the books directly (with or without translations) or with the aid of a Guru (I would suggest the latter).

This thread is NOT opened to answer any preconceived notions nor and illogical statements about Sankara's philosophy, arrived at, from God knows which website. As far as Sankara philosophy is concerned, a lot of misinterpretation is seen in the www (not all of them) and the best recourse for a genuine student is to take the effort to study the original works directly.

This thread is NOT Intended to satisfy those who want to indulge in vain arguments, without a genuine intent to search for truth.

I may not know much ......
I like to understand what they are saying and see if it is conflict free for starters.

Spiritual knowledge cannot be always shared the same way as secular knowledge.

In spirituality, what you know or dont know isn't as important as the attitude you display while seeking knowledge. All spiritual texts emphasise this. Hence, as you have been displaying an obnoxious attitude, my hands are tied by scriptures

There are great websites available online. I never said they are the ultimate means or the only means.

But you had the impertinence to refute the common usage of the term "staged evolution", simply because you could not find a website using that term! And then you have been suggesting to discard that term - a straightforward translation of the Sanskrit term, calling it "not widely used". That attitude bespeaks a certain absolute reliance on websites. Furthermore I see that the obnoxious attitude you have otherwise displayed here need not prevent you from getting information from these websites, so good luck !

Anyway, this thread was never addressed you in the first place.

i may take up formal studies in the future but to participate here I do not need any further preparation. People with substance explain and do not argue here. Those that argue and bring all kinds of extraneous information tend to be confused.

Certainly you have displayed enough confused thinking here by first imagining my "statement on staged evolution" then imagining "contradictions" then imagining my response to the so-called "contradictions" and so on..
..
While I have thoroughly enjoyed your argumentation with yourself

I never agreed with your understanding or lack of it (please re-read this thread). I have no issues understanding whatever the teaching are by Sankara when it is authentically presented.

Rereading the thread shows me that you have all along questioned Sankara's concept of krama mukti as well as the way it was translated to English as "staged evolution" by revered Swamis.

Your posts show that you are approaching the subject more like a pastime and in an argumentative fashion rather than one that requires understanding. Hence you behave obnoxiously, argue foolishly, doling out attacks, notwithstanding all the late rationalization. A person genuinely interested to know would not stoop so low as you have done here.

So with ONLY what you get out of random google search of what somebody said in a website about what Sankara said, all you seem to want is to vainly argue and and indulge in meaningless platitudes.

In many prior posts I have shared the traditional (and mine) understanding that such subtle topics can be learnt only by approaching a Guru or at least through a thorough study of Sankara's works directly.

Besides overuse of Sankara's name in vein appears as if he is your Macchan (bother in law) and leads to silliness after a while which rings hollow.

Afterall this thread is in response to an earlier thread on Sankara philosophy by sri tks. Hence I can't help mentioning Sankara's name. Has sri tks mentioned anywhere that Sankara is his machan and that makes him solely entitled to write about his philosophy? I am sure he didn't. Is Sankara your own machan that you go about advising others to reject the widely used translations of Sankara's words by revered Swamis?

Google searches, books and teachers are all sources of knowledge.

Everything is good if used in the right place and in the right way.

 

[a-TB]

As mentioned in the beginning of this thread, and repeated several times in between, this thread is opened in response to an earlier thread entitled "Bhaja Govindam" opened by Sri tks, in which he, in the course of several blog-like posts, wrote his interpretation of Sankara's philosophy.

I have refuted certain points therein and responded by providing him quotations directly from Sankara's works, as well as provided screenshots so as to help him as well as anyone else if interested, to pursue the study of Sankara's philosophy, either by referring the books directly (with or without translations) or with the aid of a Guru (I would suggest the latter).

This thread is NOT opened to answer any preconceived notions nor and illogical statements about Sankara's philosophy, arrived at, from God knows which website. As far as Sankara philosophy is concerned, a lot of misinterpretation is seen in the www (not all of them) and the best recourse for a genuine student is to take the effort to study the original works directly.

This thread is NOT Intended to satisfy those who want to indulge in vain arguments, without a genuine intent to search for truth.



Spiritual knowledge cannot be always shared the same way as secular knowledge.

In spirituality, what you know or dont know isn't as important as the attitude you display while seeking knowledge. All spiritual texts emphasise this. Hence, as you have been displaying an obnoxious attitude, my hands are tied by scriptures



But you had the impertinence to refute the common usage of the term "staged evolution", simply because you could not find a website using that term! And then you have been suggesting to discard that term - a straightforward translation of the Sanskrit term, calling it "not widely used". That attitude bespeaks a certain absolute reliance on websites. Furthermore I see that the obnoxious attitude you have otherwise displayed here need not prevent you from getting information from these websites, so good luck !

Anyway, this thread was never addressed you in the first place.



Certainly you have displayed enough confused thinking here by first imagining my "statement on staged evolution" then imagining "contradictions" then imagining my response to the so-called "contradictions" and so on..
..
While I have thoroughly enjoyed your argumentation with yourself



Rereading the thread shows me that you have all along questioned Sankara's concept of krama mukti as well as the way it was translated to English as "staged evolution" by revered Swamis.

Your posts show that you are approaching the subject more like a pastime and in an argumentative fashion rather than one that requires understanding. Hence you behave obnoxiously, argue foolishly, doling out attacks, notwithstanding all the late rationalization. A person genuinely interested to know would not stoop so low as you have done here.

So with ONLY what you get out of random google search of what somebody said in a website about what Sankara said, all you seem to want is to vainly argue and and indulge in meaningless platitudes.

In many prior posts I have shared the traditional (and mine) understanding that such subtle topics can be learnt only by approaching a Guru or at least through a thorough study of Sankara's works directly.



Afterall this thread is in response to an earlier thread on Sankara philosophy by sri tks. Hence I can't help mentioning Sankara's name. Has sri tks mentioned anywhere that Sankara is his machan and that makes him solely entitled to write about his philosophy? I am sure he didn't. Is Sankara your own machan that you go about advising others to reject the widely used translations of Sankara's words by revered Swamis?



Everything is good if used in the right place and in the right way.

1. You have not refuted anything. You have a wrong understanding of the word Mooda and in your first example you had no logical come back to Mr tks. Even now in these posts you did not. To say Sankara's writing has words like Mooda is silly because Bhaja Govindam itself has the word. Besides any quotes have to be *understood* in context. Understanding is not your cup of tea unfortunately based on your 'repetitions without exhibiting understanding'. One has to just re-read your posts to get this idea.

Just writing some Bhashya in English out of huge amount of work without any explanation and context is not scholarly.

2. I already refuted you in the chit chat section of you theory about Sankara being annoyed with ritualists etc. That was six months or so ago. I happend to run into someone who has studied Bhashyam and he said anyone that makes up history has not understood the teaching. Let me sumamrize what I heard "Why not understand Sankara from his teaching rather than make up history. Show one place where he has shown being annoyed with anyone in his Bhashyas. People do not even know when he existed. Some say 1200 years ago and others think it is 2500 years ago. so speculating on Sankara;s personality is height of ignorance" So you are wrong on that point also.

3. I have given you in simple sentences the contradictions. I showed how the contradiction is in your understanding is really a paradox and how that can be resolved.

A person who knows can easily respond rather than parroting something or the other without showing any understanding and redirecting the discussion to insults etc to escape the critiques. Is that scholarly? I dont think so

4. For the nth time I want to tell you I never questioned Sankara's teaching. The questions are ONLY about your understanding and what you have written here. Please get this.

Bottom line: Every point you made in the Bhaja Govindam lacks logic and understanding. They have been refuted. You can parrot the same thing over and over but to me you are just a collection of buzz words.

I dont want to repeat myself anymore since I am asking you to stop the same.

If and when you post something that puts value in understanding I will be the first one to applaud. If it lacks logic and even if the thread is not addressed to me I will be there to show the lack of logic.

Happy New Year!

 

[KRN]

You have not refuted anything. You have a wrong understanding of the word Mooda and in your first example you had no logical come back to Mr tks. Even now in these posts you did not. To say Sankara's writing has words like Mooda is silly because Bhaja Govindam itself has the word. Besides any quotes have to be *understood* in context. Understanding is not your cup of tea unfortunately based on your 'repetitions without exhibiting understanding'. One has to just re-read your posts to get this idea.

You are deliberately misinterpreting the whole discussion topic and making false allegations, I presume, out of sheer frustration.

In fact the reality is just the opposite of what you wrote above, as anyone can verify by perusing that "Bhaja Govindam" thread.

The real context is as follows. The word "Mooda" appears as an address to someone in the beginning of the popular stotram "Bhaja Govindam". In his thread, sri tks states that a person of the stature of Sankara could not have used the word Mooda which in his understanding is a derogatory word and he is unable to accept Sankara using such impolite words (I am just paraphrasing, or giving the sense of his long post). He went on to add that he has not seen Sankara using such words anywhere in his other works.

To which I simply replied by providing quotations from Sankara's canonical works like BSB where he used words like mooda, manda etc.

My point is simple - Yes Sankara did use such words. At one place he even calls the Buddha a "mad man". But I dont see such random usages, as lessening the stature of that great man in any way. Because these are very minor details, almost irrelevant I'd say, and we have to go beyond such usages, and see the core message the great man articulates so brilliantly in his works. I have mentioned my opinion in that thread.

From the above it must be obvious that my "understanding" of the sanskrit word mooda was never the issue, rather the usage of the sanskrit term itself (and similar terms) in Sankara's works.

In his response sri tks clearly stated that he did not want to continue the discussion, rather he wished to continue with his bloglike posts and that is the reason why I too stopped further discussion there.

All this should be obvious to anyone who looks up the thread titled "Bhaja Govindam". Except of course our frustrated "a-TB".

 

[KRN]

2. I already refuted you in the chit chat section of you theory about Sankara being annoyed with ritualists etc.

LOL. You must be mistaking me for someone else Or more likely, typical of your convoluted thinking seen here, you have misunderstood some response from my side.

Sankara had theological differences with the ritualists. He expressed that in various ways. That is all there is to it.

I happend to run into someone who has studied Bhashyam and he said anyone that makes up history has not understood the teaching. Let me sumamrize what I heard "Why not understand Sankara from his teaching rather than make up history. Show one place where he has shown being annoyed with anyone in his Bhashyas. People do not even know when he existed. Some say 1200 years ago and others think it is 2500 years ago. so speculating on Sankara;s personality is height of ignorance" So you are wrong on that point also.

The whole quote above is illogical and nonsensical. Yes, there are such usages (Mooda etc) in Sankara's works. So what? I myself have not linked them anywhere, with his personality. If any, the above castigation must apply more to sri tks, who sought to foist his prejudices against such terms like mooda etc, onto Sankara and tried to link them to his personality.

And then, who is talking history here? what does it matter here, when Sankara existed? Whether he lived 2000 yrs ago or 1000 yrs ago, in his works he clearly mentions his opponents by name - be they Sankhyas or Bauddhas or Ajivakas. And what I have always done is to simply provide direct quotations from his works, without going into speculation of any kind, be it on his period or personality.