Staged Evolution

[KRN]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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.

And I have showed that you were simply imagining my response where none was given and then assuming "contradictions" and so on. In fact the insulting language, and misinterpretation are repeatedly coming from your end.[/Quote]

 

[KRN]

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.

?
For the (n + 1) th time let me tell you that I never offered "my understanding" on Krama mukti here rather stopped short after providing direct quotes from Sankara's works showing that both Sadyomukti and Krama mukti has a place in Sankara philosophy, because the scriptures prohibit me from sharing knowledge with people displaying the behaviour you have shown here.

Not really seeing "my understanding" on Krama mukti expressed anywhere here, you have been imagining things of your own and trying to foist them on me

As a matter of fact, you have questioned Sankara's teaching several times here, but there is nothing new in it - many people not enamoured of his philosophy do that. But after doing precisely that, the way you go about stating that you never questioned Sankara is very amusing to me!

 

[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.

a-TB++++Response: The challenge was to your understanding of Sankara's teaching. That your comments are devoid of understanding of a subject matter that emphasizes understanding. Inability to comprehend and engage in thoughtful and serious discussion shows that your posts are a lot of wasted words and buzz words trying to hide under an imagined Macchan.


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


a-TB++++One has to understand and must be in search for truth to hold a reasonable and intelligent conversation. I have scaled back my expectations long ago (about 6 months ago after seeing your responses in the Chit chat thread



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


a-TB+++ You have said it correctly. Please read that to yourself facing a mirror " what I do NOT understand is not as important as the attitude I have been displaying" . Then atone for your wasted words, insults and wasting all reader's time



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 !


a-TB ++++I asked what this term means 6 months ago in the chit chat thread and that I came across only your websites after some search (which by the way is full of questionable information contributing to the notion why www sitess mostly have unreliable/useless content). At that time you could have referred to the Sanskrit term. I suspect you were confused then and took leave and came back months after.
I hope my comments and feedback make you think. It can only help with your growth. But you may not, so good luck !



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


a-TB +++ In the forum anyone can respond to any discussion item. You can be rest assured that any illogical statements from you will be challenged.




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..


a-TB ++++ This thread has limited discussion about philosophical content except perhaps comments by Mr Zebra and myself. You have not engaged in any serious content oriented writeup. Yes you did posted pictures from some pages which does not count.

Let me offer this test:

Scripture talks about knowing Atman which is Brahman. But Brahman/ Atman is infinite and words cannot be used to describe it.

If words cannot be be used to describe it, mind cannot conceive it, then how does one understand Atma/Brahman?

If you can answer, please do. Please do not say "Are you challenging the teaching etc"

If you do not know how to respond then man up and say I dont know

Ready to take the challenge??
..
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.


a-TB +++ All these studies you claim to have gone through has not done anything to your disposition. The teaching in this area is supposed to be transformative as to how one relates to others. Yet you have remained a bag of buzz words and insults. I hope your teacher is far better than you.



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?


a-TB++++ When one is clueless and using Acharya's name in vain, posts some lines with no explanation and understanding, then one can be said to refer to the Acharya like a Machan



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

a-TB++ So dont over use Sankara's name without understanding

My comments are bolded and offered for your entertainment possible growth.

 

[a-TB]

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".

Do you know the meaning of Mooda that is referred to in Bhaja Govindam and at other places you have cited?? I dont think you still do. The literal thinking mentality is a problem.

All words have meaning in a context. You have to understand the context, which you dont even do in your own citations. You did some brute search and showed some sentences.
Why dont your engage in explaining your examples and explain in detail what you think Sankara was referring to when he used those words. I know you shy away form content oriented discussion. You have been openly challenged and you can only hide behind all kinds of useless posts??

I dont want to speak for Mr tks who is not active here. You can put all the questions about your understanding to rest by simply shoiwng understanding of your own references by explaining your understanding,

If you dont take the challenge it will be obvious to anyone following the thread where you stand. Except of course to our frustrated Mr "KRN"

 

[a-TB]

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.



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.

Sankara was not a theologian. Your understanding that he was a theologian with theological differences speaks volumes to your understanding.

The quote was directed to your comment only.. Sankara did not have anathema or any such attitude because you have to show references where he wrote like that. It is all your imagination once again without any understanding

 

[a-TB]

And I have showed that you were simply imagining my response where none was given and then assuming "contradictions" and so on. In fact the insulting language, and misinterpretation are repeatedly coming from your end.

Yada yada Yada yada

Why dont you engage in content oritented rebuttal???

 

[KRN]

You have not engaged in any serious content oriented writeup. Yes you did posted pictures from some pages which does not count.

They were directly taken from the Sankara Bhashyas, as anyone remotely familiar with Sanskrit, will understand. Do you realize that, by saying "they do not count" you are insulting the readers of the forum who know Sanskrit?

TB +++ In the forum anyone can respond to any discussion item. You can be rest assured that any illogical statements from you will be challenged.

Indeed! But where is your response to the above item except that "it doesnt count"?
And what is this "illogical statement from me" that you make such a show of challenging? Quote my exact words and the post number.

 

[KRN]

My comments are bolded and offered for your entertainment

A rare truthful statement from you - indeed they were highly entertaining.

 

[KRN]

TB ++++ This thread has limited discussion about philosophical content except perhaps comments by Mr Zebra and myself. You have not engaged in any serious content oriented writeup.


Yes you did posted pictures from some pages which does not count.

Indeed! What I see is a simple query from Zebra which you have not answered, instead you posted some "information", gobbled up from some website I suppose. Did you at all understand the query posed by Zebra?

Scripture talks about knowing Atman which is Brahman.

Which scripture talks that? And what is your understanding of the term atman and brahman?

But Brahman/ Atman is infinite and words cannot be used to describe it.

But you yourself said "scriptures talk...". If words cannot be used, then how does scriptures talk? Either your first statement is wrong, or the second one.

And what do your really mean when you say that Brahman/Atman is infinite? Do you mean they cannot be finite? Why so? Where is the proof for that?

If you can answer, please do. Please do not say "Are you challenging the teaching etc"

I am challenging your understanding of scriptures. Your statements are illogical.

 

[KRN]

Do you know the meaning of Mooda that is referred to in Bhaja Govindam and at other places you have cited?? I dont think you still do. The literal thinking mentality is a problem.

All words have meaning in a context. You have to understand the context, which you dont even do in your own citations. You did some brute search and showed some sentences.

Really? I have given three citations. The words like Mooda, manda etc are commonly used in an impolite sense only. But here is the challenge for you. Engage yourself in exploring the context of each quote, and prove that in each context, they are used in a different meaning, different from the derogatory sense originally attributed to the word Mooda by sri tks. Here is an open challenge for you.

If you are not man enough to take up this challenge and prove your words true, then admit that the words are indeed used in the derogatory sense and shut up.

I dont want to speak for Mr tks who is not active here.

Well this thread was opened and addressed to sri tks, who must be able to make sense of the screenshots of pages in Sanskrit. I was wondering about his total silence. In his absence, this interaction with a-TB has only entertainment value.

 

[KRN]

This is your statement

You have a wrong understanding of the word Mooda

Prove your statement by giving the meaning of the word "in the context"

 

[KRN]

You did some brute search and showed some sentences.

Really? As far as I know, the Sanskrit language doesn't allow itself to any effective "brute search" method in Sanskrit texts. I might be wrong. Anyway the point is that, there are many instances where, not only the word Mooda, but a host of similar words are used by Sankara appropriately - and anyone who has been regularly perusing Sankara Bhashyam will be able to recognize that fact.

And as I mentioned earlier, I remember reading Sankara referring to the Buddha as a "mad man". In this forum there are others who have read Sankara's works in Sanskrit. If I am wrong, let them correct me.

 

[KRN]

++++One has to understand and must be in search for truth to hold a reasonable and intelligent conversation. I have scaled back my expectations long ago (about 6 months ago after seeing your responses in the Chit chat thread

LOL. The first sentence is so very true in the light of your obnoxious behavious throughout.

I asked what this term means 6 months ago in the chit chat thread
and that I came across only your websites after some search

Once you revealed your profound ignorance of even fundamental terms like "staged evolution", which you are going to search in google first, what meaningful discussion is really possible with you?

If your attitude was good, I could have assumed a teaching position and shared the info.....

But to add to that ignorance an arrogant and obnoxious attitude to complete the picture..

Yeah 6 months ago I had resolved never to share any more information with you, in the light of the admonition in scriptures against people like you.

LOL I do randomly post in 2, 3 blogs. I never recommended my blogs anywhere - I always said that these things should be learnt from a Guru, so if you are cribbing about the blogs, you have yourself to blame

 

[a-TB]

They were directly taken from the Sankara Bhashyas, as anyone remotely familiar with Sanskrit, will understand. Do you realize that, by saying "they do not count" you are insulting the readers of the forum who know Sanskrit?



Indeed! But where is your response to the above item except that "it doesnt count"?
And what is this "illogical statement from me" that you make such a show of challenging? Quote my exact words and the post number.

Again silliness. Bhashyas are not to be literally read. That again shows a naive view of the topics. Here people are not always Sanskrit scholars and neither are you though you want to pass off one by copying some text here and there, In reality you and I are at the same level. You and I are ignorant, only you claim to not know that by hiding behind some words. Scholars are at ease explaining. In fact the measure if scholarship is directly proportional to how they can explain to almost anyone.

All I ask you is : You produced two statements where the word Mooda was used. Please explain the topic discussed and your understanding and how Mooda is a name calling. It is your own post. I know you cannot take this challenge because you are clueless. In fact true progress happens when we admit our ignorance in such matters

 

[a-TB]

Really? As far as I know, the Sanskrit language doesn't allow itself to any effective "brute search" method in Sanskrit texts. I might be wrong. Anyway the point is that, there are many instances where, not only the word Mooda, but a host of similar words are used by Sankara appropriately - and anyone who has been regularly perusing Sankara Bhashyam will be able to recognize that fact.

And as I mentioned earlier, I remember reading Sankara referring to the Buddha as a "mad man". In this forum there are others who have read Sankara's works in Sanskrit. If I am wrong, let them correct me.

You are trivializing great works, It is not about usage of some word. You have to know the deep meaning and not view such things literally. That leads to shallowness. What makes you play all these games?? No one is impressed but if you explain well people appreciate. I came across one Swami Sarvapriyananda online. He is from Ramakrishana Mutt and young Sannyasi. He is so eloquent and makes compelex topic seem simple. That is scholarship

 

[a-TB]

LOL. The first sentence is so very true in the light of your obnoxious behavious throughout.

Once you revealed your profound ignorance of even fundamental terms like "staged evolution", which you are going to search in google first, what meaningful discussion is really possible with you?

If your attitude was good, I could have assumed a teaching position and shared the info.....

But to add to that ignorance an arrogant and obnoxious attitude to complete the picture..

Yeah 6 months ago I had resolved never to share any more information with you, in the light of the admonition in scriptures against people like you.

LOL I do randomly post in 2, 3 blogs. I never recommended my blogs anywhere - I always said that these things should be learnt from a Guru, so if you are cribbing about the blogs, you have yourself to blame

Sorry to burst your bubble. Let me share a secret. A confused person cannot teach anything to anyone. You are not a teacher or a student based on what you have posted. You have remained a bag of bones with some buzz words. A real learning will start when you admit ignorance

I only pointed out that online you find mostly utter nonsense. I just had curiosity and affirmed my view of your writing

 

[a-TB]

Really? I have given three citations. The words like Mooda, manda etc are commonly used in an impolite sense only. But here is the challenge for you. Engage yourself in exploring the context of each quote, and prove that in each context, they are used in a different meaning, different from the derogatory sense originally attributed to the word Mooda by sri tks. Here is an open challenge for you.

If you are not man enough to take up this challenge and prove your words true, then admit that the words are indeed used in the derogatory sense and shut up.



Well this thread was opened and addressed to sri tks, who must be able to make sense of the screenshots of pages in Sanskrit. I was wondering about his total silence. In his absence, this interaction with a-TB has only entertainment value.

First of all if you want to know the correct meaning of Mooda you can read the entirety of the Bhajagovindam thread except your posts.

Your citation was refuted. If you think you really made a point please engage in content oriented discussions. Make your case. Respond to what Mr tks said to your first example. It does not matter who is visiting here. You were out for 6 months. People come and go.

I know you will not engage in content oriented discussions. I even gave you another challenge. It is deceptively simple but to answer you have to understand and make it your own knowledge. Only then you can answer.

No point in beating a dead horse.

Let you stay the way you are and I accept you fully as you are. Let me stop debating with you. I should have taken a cue from Mr tks who intuitively knew not to get engaged with you.

We will talk about some mundane topics in other sections.

I wish you all the best, Be well

 

[a-TB]

I am done engaging with you in this thread, Mr KRN.
If you produce content oriented posts and answered the challenges made in this thread I will be happy to participate.

Since that is not going to happen let us agree to disagree about your levels of understanding and scholarship.

 

[KRN]

All I ask you is : You produced two statements where the word Mooda was used. Please explain the topic discussed and your understanding and how Mooda is a name calling. It is your own post. I know you cannot take this challenge because you are clueless. In fact true progress happens when we admit our ignorance in such matters

Hello Mr a-TB,
For the umpteenth time, let me inform you that it was the expressed understanding of sri tks, not mine, in the Bhaja Govindam thread, that the word Mooda is name-calling, and hence,in HIS understanding Sankara would have never used it in his works . You are twisting even the simplest facts and despite your cluelessness, or perhaps due to it, continue to make meaningless statements despite them having been refuted repeatedly here. In response to Sri tks, all that I had to do was to provide instances directly taken from Sankara, to the contrary.
Now, as a self appointed machan of the absent sri tks, If you think that, in the context of these quotes I provided, the word Mooda means something different from the understanding expressed by Sri tks that it is a denigratory word, as is commonly accepted too , then the onus is on YOU, Mr a-TB to prove it here. I have explained it in the simplest English, but instead of taking up the challenge you are running away.

 

[KRN]

Bhashyas are not to be literally read.

LOL.
Bhashyas have to be first read . You have revealed your "knowledge" by saying that the quotes do not count since they were in Sanskrit language. But I have expressly addressed them to Sri tks who, as the writer on Bhaja Govindam etc, must be aware of the Sanskrit. By jumping into this matter with your silly statements, lies and other obnoxious behaviour you have only made a laughing stock of yourself.

Here people are not always Sanskrit scholars and neither are you though you want to pass off one by copying some text here and there

A child with a basic schooling of Sanskrit language can figure out the meaning of the passage quoted by me. That's one more reason for the greatness of Sankara - he used the simplest language (Sanskrit can be an incredibly complex language in the hands of some) to explain his ideas.

But given the level of intelligence you have displayed here, I am not surprised by your statement above. Anything that anybody posts here in the Sanskrit language would seem to you like "passing off as a Sanskrit scholar", whereas my motive in posting the original Sanskrit was just to assist Sri tks in locating them easily in the works, and thus satisfy himself that what I have claimed earlier on the concept of "staged evolution" was indeed true, and directly from Sankara.

 

[KRN]

You are trivializing great works, It is not about usage of some word. You have to know the deep meaning and not view such things literally. That leads to shallowness.

This thread was opened solely to discuss the concept of "staged evolution", which is an extremely important topic.

The trivialization was done by YOU
with your unique and colossal ignorance, when you introduced here the entirely different and possibly trivial topic of "usage of words like Mooda" etc with the post #6 on Dec 11.

Now a few words on that "trivial" topic. In school we have studied stories like "Somu was a good boy. etc etc". Once we grow up, we realize that such stories are just trivializations, and real life can be extremely complex. Adi Sankara was an extremely brilliant person, and the Sankara whom we see through his works, was a complex personality too. I say this with all respect due to him. But my fidelity is always to the truth alone.

The trivialization was done by Sri tks who, with his statements that Sankara could not have used denigratory words like Mooda etc in his works, trivialized Sankara's personality into a "good boy Somu" image that is not consistent with what we see in Sankara's works. So the trivialization, if any, started when Sri tks expatiated by applying his prejudices against words like Mooda etc on Sankara, and veered away from the truth. On my part, I simply provided quotations from the Bhashyas that tell us that Sankara was a slightly more down-to-earth personality than the one sought to be portrayed by Sri tks.

 

[KRN]

What makes you play all these games??

Indeed this is a query I wanted to ask you for many days. Either you are incredibly stupid, or extremely spiteful of me, to keep on telling lies, making baseless allegations against me.

For several weeks you have been saying you found "contradictions" in my "understanding" despite me clearly stating (multiple times) that I have merely quoted Sankara directly and have not ventured to provide my "understanding" anywhere! Finally I specifically asked you in post #57 at which you escape without replying You have no answer to the posts #59 or 60 either!

 

[KRN]

First of all if you want to know the correct meaning of Mooda you can read the entirety of the Bhajagovindam thread except your posts.

Your citation was refuted.

The way to refute a citation that "Sankara did use a word in some place in some work" is to show that the word is NOT used in that place in that work. Instead of blindly repeating some nonsense, show me where this refutation is done for the 3 quotes I gave.

In any case, that topic is NOT why this thread is opened. This thread is solely concerned with the concept of "Staged evolution" in Sankara philosophy, until it got hijacked into other trivial topics.

 

[KRN]

If you think you really made a point please engage in content oriented discussions. Make your case.

But there is no one to discuss with. I had opened this thread expecting to see a response from Sri tks but there was none till now. And from you there is only lies, misinterpretations and insults!

 

[KRN]

Let you stay the way you are and I accept you fully as you are. Let me stop debating with you.

But where is the debate? Do you seriously call your behaviour as debate? In a debate opposing views need to be presented. Where are your points? What is your take on "staged evolution"?

When I ask you a few direct queries, in posts 57,59,60,61 you issue more lies or meaningless platitudes and run away!

Perhaps I should have asked these queries much earlier !

I should have taken a cue from Mr tks who intuitively knew not to get engaged with you.

LOL. I didn't know you have a way of seeing what goes on in another's mind. In that thread a few others have posted too, like madame renuka. I didn't see Sri tks engaging anyone in a discussion. He has clearly expressed that his purpose in opening the thread was to just update his thoughts in it - and that was what he was doing too, blog like.