Staged Evolution

[KRN]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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

The bubble is only in your own dreams or hallucinations.

I have NO bubble of becoming a "teacher" or a "student" here. I have never posted here, or in any blogs, on subtle topics like the nature of Brahman. I sometimes respond to threads on other topics, just for the joy of posting and discussing.

When I post here, my fidelity is only to the truth. My principle is Naamulam Likhyathey Kimchid Naanapekshithamuchyathey.

A person might be very good in explaining, but unless he also has fidelity to the truth, his statements will become "science fiction" and not science.

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

I never sought your opinion nor care about it. Instead of replying to my queries, you have been sidetracking to irrelevant matters.

 

[a-TB]

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.

Your messages thus far is but an example of how a frog in a well thinks. You are stuck in words without knowing the meaning, purport and how a word applies in the overall message. That requires understanding and ability to refute expanding on what you have stated. You may have coped from some book without comprehending and hence are unable to engage in content oriented dialog. Just so that you dont escape making claims and trying to see if you can be drawn into a content oriented discussion instead of spewing wasted words and insults here is one last attempt.

In post 17 of Bhajagovindam thread this was response to one of your claims.

Now the onus is on you to respond to that. You have not done that.

I have reproduced what was said there. Now respond to it with content.

"
You offered examples from Brahma Sutra Bhashyam and from Mandukya Upanishad Bhashyam about Bhashyakara's usage of words translated as 'low intellect'. I applaud you for providing concrete example to make your point. The context of usage is very different and not applicable in the context of the discussion about Bajagovindam and its usage of the word 'Moodamathe'. Let me offer very brief comments since I do not want to get distracted with discussions about these verses of Mandukya Upanishad at this point.

The quote of Bhashyakara that you provided from Mandukya upanishad (verse 12) actually makes reference to verse 16 of his Parmaguru's (Gaudapada) Karika in the Advita Prakararanam. He has provided commentaries on the verses of the Karika as well as you know. I am mentioning this only to provide a more holistic context in interpreting the word in question.

Madhyama means middle implying there is higher and lower. The Karika verse provides clarification on what these three are.

Intellect is not uniform across all people. Obviously there are people with higher intellect, people with lower intellect and those that lie closer to the median in a Gaussian curve. In the vision of Upanishads, intellect is actually an impediment because one has to dismantle so many wrong notions to arrive at the truth, if they are so fortunate. Nevertheless, intellect has a role to help one know all that is not the truth and it is valuable in that sense. It is also helpful to understand the teachings of a teacher whose pointing fingers point to the truth with the help of the Sruthi. But some people may not have the intellect to go beyond staring at the pointing fingers instead of looking at what is pointed.

For example, second sloka of Sri Dhakshinamurthi stotram shines light on cosmogony of the universe in the vision of the Upanishads. But then one does not need all those discussions if one truly understood the essence of the teachings of Mandukya Upanishad which has powerful analysis of the states of our existence. To appreciate the whole picture, where the teaching method involves deliberate superimposition only to be negated later, requires superior intellect. Many can get stuck in the seeming contradictions.

A person may already be striving to lead a life of a Karma Yogi but not have the emotional fortitude for Upasana (Middle case) and also not have the vision to follow the teachings as in the example above (manda buddhi). The purpose of the teaching is to dismantle the Ahankara through Sravanam, Mananam and Nidhdhyasanam (Brihadaranya Upanishad). Now a person who is given to a life of Karma yoga and not quiet there in terms of following the teaching due to poor vision of the teachings, is offered to meditate on Omkara. This is to extoll the virtues of Omkara as all-pervading silence (and not just removal of noise) with its ability to destroy Ahankara. This is suggested to such people and is viewed as an approach of compassion by the Sruth (as per the Karika verse 16). "

So refute the so called Karika verse and explain your understanding. Or best is to be silent. I know based on your past writing what you will do which is to say lot of useless words, insults and irrelevant things. The challenge is on,

 

[a-TB]

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.



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.

OK, self proclaimed Sanskrit Scholar. Translate the passage below and provide the meaning

"evaM prApte, brUmaH — na tAvanmugdho jAgaritAvastho bhavitumarhati ; na hyayamindriyairviSayAnIkSate | syAdetat — iSukAranyAyena mugdho bhaviSyati — yathA iSukAro jAgradapi iSvAsaktamanastayA nAnyAnviSayAnIkSate, evaM mugdho musalasampAtAdijanitaduHkhAnubhavavyagramanastayA jAgradapi nAnyAnviSayAnIkSata iti ; na, acetayamAnatvAt ; iSukAro hi vyApRtamanA bravIti — iSumevAhametAvantaM kAlamupalabhamAno'bhUvamiti, mugdhastu labdhasaMjJo bravIti — andhe tamasyahametAvantaM kAlaM prakSipto'bhUvam , na kiJcinmayA cetitamiti | jAgratazcaikaviSayaviSaktacetaso'pi deho vidhriyate ; mugdhasya tu deho dharaNyAM patati | tasmAt na jAgarti | nApi svapnAnpazyati, niHsaMjJakatvAt "

It is from BrahmaSutra Bhashyam. Now you claim you can read Sanskrit and understand the meaning. Please explain

 

[a-TB]

I said I will not engage in non-content oriented discussions. I have tried one last time to steer you to content oriented discussions holding you accountable to your claims. You started this thread with a view to explain yourself by repetition and by copying & pasting. I have shown you that you have not answered one critique of your writing.

Do I know the scriptures and claim mastery. NO.
Can I sense a BS artist from a mile away, Yes indeed,

I like to learn here but from people who know. Most websites have useless info such as yours. I stay away from them.

Same with people calling themselves as Gurus.

My contribution is to expose wrong ideas in the forum. A person who knows what they write and know the references they quote are able to explain their own statements. I do not take you seriously and hence all your insults are source of laughter only.

My intent is not to expose your lack of logic any further. That will be Himsa and I like to live by the teaching "Ahimsa Paramo Dharma".

I have given you opportunities once again to engage in content oriented discussions. If you dont do that then let this thread stand as is, notwithstanding whatever useless words you continue to post wasting yours and everyone else's time.

Once again, let us chat about some mundane topics. Hope you are enjoying the Music season in Chennai. Hope you have a healthy and prosperous new year.

 

[a-TB]

While looking at your post #15 at the Bhajagovindam thread, here is what you have,

"Na hi avikaare anante brahmani sarvaih pumbhih sakyaam buddhih sthapayitum manda madhyottamabuddhitvaad pumsaamiti. (Brahma Sutra Bhashyam 3.2.33)

Meaning : For, as some men are of inferior, others middling, others again of superior intelligence, not all are capable of fixing their mind on the infinite Brahman devoid of any change or transformation. "

Taking whatever you copied and pasted as true, even for me who claims no special knowledge of such areas, I can see that this example is taken out of context. There is no name calling here.

Intellect in human beings can be inferior or middling (I guess average) or Superior. Using Intelligence they cannot fix their mind on Brahman (which I have read is beyond words).

In what way your example show Sankara is doing name calling of anyone? He seems to say intellect has no role in trying to understand Brahman. Using the word Manda is along with average and superior only covers all cases of human intellect.

Once again, this proves total cluelessness because there is no name calling of anyone here by Sankara. If your purpose is to show Sankara used the word Mooda or Mandha that is childish to bring to a serious discussion. Maybe now I can see why there was no response to you because the example is silly to bring up and has no applicability.

Both your examples have been refuted. Your misunderstanding of 'staged evolution' has been already explained (see my own posts earlier).

There is no more content to discuss unless there is an intelligent not Manda Mooda response ??

 

[KRN]

That requires understanding and ability to refute expanding on what you have stated. You may have coped from some book without comprehending and hence are unable to engage in content oriented dialog.

LOL. This is exactly what you have done yesterday - copy pasted some stuff from sri tks' posts in the Bhaja Govindam thread, without comprehending it, and copy pasting some other Sanskrit passages transliterated to English, without comprehending anything. Now I understand, your view of "content oriented dialog" - As I have mentioned earlier, let me first see a single line of content of 'your own" first

I have never shied away from content oriented discussions with people who know what they are talking about. Right in this thread, sri Zebra posted citing the example of the Vyadha of MBH - for krama mukti and immediately I welcomed the post and responded with the additional example of Vidura -both examples quoted by Sankara himself in the apasudraathikaranam. I have also mentioned other examples like the Rishi Vamadeva in my post.

 

[KRN]

OK, self proclaimed Sanskrit Scholar....

Yet another lie from you. Show me where I have proclaimed myself so. In fact, I am feeling that you must have an inferiority complex at your own lack of Sanskrit knowledge - and that's why you are calling anybody who posts something of Sanskrit here, as "posing as a Sanskrit scholar".

The rest of the passage that you obviously lifted from some website, deserves no response. I am not here to do translation work for you.

Instead of diverting from the main topic, first provide answers to the queries raised - in posts 57, 59, 60, 61.

 

[KRN]

Both your examples have been refuted. Your misunderstanding of 'staged evolution' has been already explained (see my own posts earlier).

For the third time - show me where I have posted my understanding of 'staged evolution' - this is the question in # 57 that you are evading, and instead you continue with your lies.

 

[KRN]

In what way your example show Sankara is doing name calling of anyone? He seems to say intellect has no role in trying to understand Brahman. Using the word Manda is along with average and superior only covers all cases of human intellect.

These three quotes were provided in response to sri tks' statement in the "Bhaja Govindam thread" that Sankara would have never used "disrespectful" words for the opposition. They were just provided as a direct response on that thread.

The challenge was already issued for you to see the context (entire passage) of these quotes and to see whom the word "manda buddhis" apply there. It is the stated advaita position that dualists are those who dont have the intellect to meditate on the nirguna brahman. Dualist acharyas who consider their God forms as reality and surrender to that God as the ultimate goal, certainly consider being called "Manda buddhis" as disrespectful and they have responded in kind in their own literature.

 

[KRN]

My intention in opening thread was to respond to sri tks's statement in the "Bhaja Govindam" thread that the concept of "Staged Evolution of a soul" which I had mentioned there, is not meaningful/does not make sense to him. In the beginning of this thread I have provided screen shots from Sankara's works wherein he has discussed Krama Mukti (which is translated as staged evolution, by Vedantic scholars). I am waiting for a response from sri tks to refer these passages and get back to me. Instead of that, all I see here is lies and nonsense from "a-TB"

 

[KRN]

In post 17 of Bhajagovindam thread this was response to one of your claims.

Now the onus is on you to respond to that. You have not done that.

I did not respond to that, since sri tks simultaneously expressed his disinclination to continue the discussion.

The context of a statement is determined by looking at the preceding, succeeding statements, by looking at the entire passage, and after that if required, the entire chapter. Sri tks just mentions the word "context" but the rest of his post is his own rambling thoughts. Where is he talking about the passage, the lines before and after this statement? He also brings in the Dakshinamurty Stotram, which is an entirely different text. As an aid to the exposition of his own ideas, that may be welcome. But for determining the context of a statement in a passage in another work , it is of no use. The challenge has been already made to you Mr a-TB to substantiate your claim that these three examples are used in a different context. I have been waiting for your response to posts 57, 59, 60, 61, 69

 

[KRN]

I like the philosophy espoused by sri tks, and this is a trivial topic for me (compared to the main topic of this thread) but my question to sri tks would still be :

It was your stated opinion, that the word "Moodamathe" is a derogatory one. (NOT mine : I have not expressed any opinion on it)

If you see the context of the quotes I have given, you can see Sankara using the word "Manda buddhi" to describe certain people, following certain beliefs and practices

And since the words "Moodamathe" and "Manda Buddhi" are synonyms, you cannot call the usage of one derogatory, and the other not so

Either both are derogatory, or both aren't

 

[zebra16]

I logged in today with a view to continue my post on krama mukthi, but was surprised to find a number of posts on usage or otherwise of the word “mooDA” by Adi Sankara in Bhaja Govindam in disparaging manner. I thought I would attend to this first, and give my views, worthless as it may be.

My opinion is that words and meanings (vAk+ artham) too evolve over a period and many of the words that have adverse connotations or stigma attached today did or might not have had that sting when such words were liberally being used. Adi Sankara did use the word “mooDA” but it might have not had the connotation of idiot or fool then, but meaning a mild word of “ignorant mind”.

The word mooDA was quite freely used by authorities other than Sankara, and I give two such examples:

(i) Vibheeshana had made a reference to Rama LakshmaNa bandhus as “mooDAs” in conversation with Ravana. Adi Kavi vAlmki obviously had no qualms about usage of the word. To circumvent tedious search, I furnish the book link of “pure gems of rAmAyaNam” which can be easily verified:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id...hUKEwi-g-rZ5uvmAhVH7XMBHeyKDBIQ6AEwCnoECAkQAQ

(ii) in Vishnu Sahasra nAmam BhAshyam, Sri Sankara verbatim quotes two sentences attributed to Lord Shiva in Bhavishyottara Puranam (that too twice):

//quote // Maheśvara (Śiva) says:

विष्णोरन्यं तु पश्यन्ति ये मां ब्रह्माणमेव वा ।
कुतर्कमतयो मूढाः पच्यन्ते नरकेष्वधः ॥

[Those fools who, devoid of proper thinking, consider Me and Brahmā as different from Viṣṇu will be baked in the lowly hells.]

ये च मूढा दुरात्मानो भिन्नं पश्यन्ति मां हरेः ।
ब्रह्माणं च ततस्तस्माद् ब्रह्महत्यासमं त्वघम् ॥

[Those fools, wicked ones, by seeing Me and Brahmā as different from Hari are committing the heinous sin of brahmahatyā.]

//unquote//

Source:
https://www.scribd.com/document/109...-Shankaracharya-Translated-by-R-A-Shastri-pdf

(page 57 of 504 – for easy reference)


Sringeri ShAradA Mutt is considered to be numero uno institution by traditionalists in propogating views of Adi Sankara with authenticity and with accuracy. The translation of the first slOkA of Bhaja Govindam as provided by Sringeri vidyA BhArathi Foundation can be found here:

http://svbf.org/newsletters/year-2013/bhajagovindam-i/

The translation would not have found its place at the above site if it had not been vetted by the pandits and vidhwAns of Sringeri Mutt.

Better to base argument, discussion or debate on authentic sources than translations provided by amateur members of our forum or anon sources, howsoever well learned we may consider them to be.

In addition to change of meaning to words (and increase/decrease of their severity), we also should understand the peer pressure faced or voluntarily undertaken by Hindus in defending their heritage and literature in foreign soil. The peer pressure often leads to fallacial, fanciful and on many occasions creative translations so as to toe the moral ethos and standards of Western society today by retrofitting meanings etc. of our scriptures written millennia earlier.

This is the primary reason for many nonsensical translations at numerous websites. Unfortunate though it is, some members of this forum have also fallen victim to this..

 

[a-TB]

I logged in today with a view to continue my post on krama mukthi, but was surprised to find a number of posts on usage or otherwise of the word “mooDA” by Adi Sankara in Bhaja Govindam in disparaging manner. I thought I would attend to this first, and give my views, worthless as it may be.

My opinion is that words and meanings (vAk+ artham) too evolve over a period and many of the words that have adverse connotations or stigma attached today did or might not have had that sting when such words were liberally being used. Adi Sankara did use the word “mooDA” but it might have not had the connotation of idiot or fool then, but meaning a mild word of “ignorant mind”.

The word mooDA was quite freely used by authorities other than Sankara, and I give two such examples:

(i) Vibheeshana had made a reference to Rama LakshmaNa bandhus as “mooDAs” in conversation with Ravana. Adi Kavi vAlmki obviously had no qualms about usage of the word. To circumvent tedious search, I furnish the book link of “pure gems of rAmAyaNam” which can be easily verified:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id...hUKEwi-g-rZ5uvmAhVH7XMBHeyKDBIQ6AEwCnoECAkQAQ

(ii) in Vishnu Sahasra nAmam BhAshyam, Sri Sankara verbatim quotes two sentences attributed to Lord Shiva in Bhavishyottara Puranam (that too twice):

//quote // Maheśvara (Śiva) says:

विष्णोरन्यं तु पश्यन्ति ये मां ब्रह्माणमेव वा ।
कुतर्कमतयो मूढाः पच्यन्ते नरकेष्वधः ॥

[Those fools who, devoid of proper thinking, consider Me and Brahmā as different from Viṣṇu will be baked in the lowly hells.]

ये च मूढा दुरात्मानो भिन्नं पश्यन्ति मां हरेः ।
ब्रह्माणं च ततस्तस्माद् ब्रह्महत्यासमं त्वघम् ॥

[Those fools, wicked ones, by seeing Me and Brahmā as different from Hari are committing the heinous sin of brahmahatyā.]

//unquote//

Source:
https://www.scribd.com/document/109...-Shankaracharya-Translated-by-R-A-Shastri-pdf

(page 57 of 504 – for easy reference)


Sringeri ShAradA Mutt is considered to be numero uno institution by traditionalists in propogating views of Adi Sankara with authenticity and with accuracy. The translation of the first slOkA of Bhaja Govindam as provided by Sringeri vidyA BhArathi Foundation can be found here:

http://svbf.org/newsletters/year-2013/bhajagovindam-i/

The translation would not have found its place at the above site if it had not been vetted by the pandits and vidhwAns of Sringeri Mutt.

Better to base argument, discussion or debate on authentic sources than translations provided by amateur members of our forum or anon sources, howsoever well learned we may consider them to be.

In addition to change of meaning to words (and increase/decrease of their severity), we also should understand the peer pressure faced or voluntarily undertaken by Hindus in defending their heritage and literature in foreign soil. The peer pressure often leads to fallacial, fanciful and on many occasions creative translations so as to toe the moral ethos and standards of Western society today by retrofitting meanings etc. of our scriptures written millennia earlier.

This is the primary reason for many nonsensical translations at numerous websites. Unfortunate though it is, some members of this forum have also fallen victim to this..

Dear Mr Zebra,

Thanks for a well researched post.

Per Mr tks , he translated word Mooda as deluded giving examples from Gita etc. Even in your examples that meaning still applies.

I suppose delusion is ignorance but it DOES NOT have anything to do with intellectual capacity of a person (as in the English word Fool). Most of the world is deluded which includes some of the most intelligent people.

Choosing English words for the right word from another language can be tricky and can change the meaning in my view

 

[a-TB]

I like the philosophy espoused by sri tks, and this is a trivial topic for me (compared to the main topic of this thread) but my question to sri tks would still be :

It was your stated opinion, that the word "Moodamathe" is a derogatory one. (NOT mine : I have not expressed any opinion on it)

If you see the context of the quotes I have given, you can see Sankara using the word "Manda buddhi" to describe certain people, following certain beliefs and practices

And since the words "Moodamathe" and "Manda Buddhi" are synonyms, you cannot call the usage of one derogatory, and the other not so

Either both are derogatory, or both aren't

I dont think you read the thread in its entirety and hence you are confused which is not surprising. In posts people provide prevailing views only to dismantle them. You who claim to have studied Sankara commentaries must know that. I am not surprised with your question. For your sake I hope Mr tks will set your understanding straight

 

[a-TB]

I logged in today with a view to continue my post on krama mukthi, but was surprised to find a number of posts on usage or otherwise of the word “mooDA” by Adi Sankara in Bhaja Govindam in disparaging manner. I thought I would attend to this first, and give my views, worthless as it may be.

My opinion is that words and meanings (vAk+ artham) too evolve over a period and many of the words that have adverse connotations or stigma attached today did or might not have had that sting when such words were liberally being used. Adi Sankara did use the word “mooDA” but it might have not had the connotation of idiot or fool then, but meaning a mild word of “ignorant mind”.

The word mooDA was quite freely used by authorities other than Sankara, and I give two such examples:

(i) Vibheeshana had made a reference to Rama LakshmaNa bandhus as “mooDAs” in conversation with Ravana. Adi Kavi vAlmki obviously had no qualms about usage of the word. To circumvent tedious search, I furnish the book link of “pure gems of rAmAyaNam” which can be easily verified:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id...hUKEwi-g-rZ5uvmAhVH7XMBHeyKDBIQ6AEwCnoECAkQAQ

(ii) in Vishnu Sahasra nAmam BhAshyam, Sri Sankara verbatim quotes two sentences attributed to Lord Shiva in Bhavishyottara Puranam (that too twice):

//quote // Maheśvara (Śiva) says:

विष्णोरन्यं तु पश्यन्ति ये मां ब्रह्माणमेव वा ।
कुतर्कमतयो मूढाः पच्यन्ते नरकेष्वधः ॥

[Those fools who, devoid of proper thinking, consider Me and Brahmā as different from Viṣṇu will be baked in the lowly hells.]

ये च मूढा दुरात्मानो भिन्नं पश्यन्ति मां हरेः ।
ब्रह्माणं च ततस्तस्माद् ब्रह्महत्यासमं त्वघम् ॥

[Those fools, wicked ones, by seeing Me and Brahmā as different from Hari are committing the heinous sin of brahmahatyā.]

//unquote//

Source:
https://www.scribd.com/document/109...-Shankaracharya-Translated-by-R-A-Shastri-pdf

(page 57 of 504 – for easy reference)


Sringeri ShAradA Mutt is considered to be numero uno institution by traditionalists in propogating views of Adi Sankara with authenticity and with accuracy. The translation of the first slOkA of Bhaja Govindam as provided by Sringeri vidyA BhArathi Foundation can be found here:

http://svbf.org/newsletters/year-2013/bhajagovindam-i/

The translation would not have found its place at the above site if it had not been vetted by the pandits and vidhwAns of Sringeri Mutt.

Better to base argument, discussion or debate on authentic sources than translations provided by amateur members of our forum or anon sources, howsoever well learned we may consider them to be.

In addition to change of meaning to words (and increase/decrease of their severity), we also should understand the peer pressure faced or voluntarily undertaken by Hindus in defending their heritage and literature in foreign soil. The peer pressure often leads to fallacial, fanciful and on many occasions creative translations so as to toe the moral ethos and standards of Western society today by retrofitting meanings etc. of our scriptures written millennia earlier.

This is the primary reason for many nonsensical translations at numerous websites. Unfortunate though it is, some members of this forum have also fallen victim to this..

No idea what peer pressure you are talking about. I did not understand that part of your post. Where is the western society coming here? In the west no one really cares what one writes in this forum or anywhere. Who needs to justify what to whom? I am not sure I understand how this belongs in your response. Could you please explain what you are alluding to?

The website you referenced (svbf.org) is associated with a temple in Pennsylvania (USA). I happen to know some people associated with that temple at one time. The temple was supported by Sringeri Mutt when it ran into some serious financial problems. The online version of their newsletter is not vetted by anyone in particular as far as I could gather other than local people in USA. That is not to say there are not experts in USA,

They translated Mooda as Ignorant mind (that is not same as Fool)

Experts and many spiritual leaders in India translate a Temple deity as idol because that seem the best word for them.

But idol has a very bad meaning in other religions (such as devil).


Right translation is the one that gets the intent of an idea correct and if there is a possibilities of confusion it is better to use a different word.

 

[a-TB]

I did not respond to that, since sri tks simultaneously expressed his disinclination to continue the discussion.

The context of a statement is determined by looking at the preceding, succeeding statements, by looking at the entire passage, and after that if required, the entire chapter. Sri tks just mentions the word "context" but the rest of his post is his own rambling thoughts. Where is he talking about the passage, the lines before and after this statement? He also brings in the Dakshinamurty Stotram, which is an entirely different text. As an aid to the exposition of his own ideas, that may be welcome. But for determining the context of a statement in a passage in another work , it is of no use. The challenge has been already made to you Mr a-TB to substantiate your claim that these three examples are used in a different context. I have been waiting for your response to posts 57, 59, 60, 61, 69

These forum exchanges are read by many and hence one must strive to keep petty things aside and respond to content. Your one example was refuted by Mr tks and you have no content response.

The other example was refuted by me.

#57 : Copying and pasting some page without understanding does not count as scholarly. It was addressed to you. Also you failed the test by not being able to translate even a few lines I gave you. That speaks volumes. I was speaking to the pretentiousness of claiming some authority and knowledge.

#59 : I had content based response. You have to read and if your respond back to what I wrote I will be happy to engage

#60: You have not understood what Mr tks wrote about word Mooda. Your examples are all inapplicable and distracting to say politely. You have no response to what I wrote to one of them and what Mr tks wrote to you for which I offered you to counter (which you did not not and cannot)

#61 : Though you have not displayed the right attitude to learn in this thread let me take this opportunity to educate you. Mooda means delusion which is also same as ignorance. It does not have anything to do with intellectual capacity and is not derogatory.

#69 : Already answered earlier. Mr tks is verbose and even tedious sometimes. His style is to take prevailing misconceptions and make a case for them before dismantling and presenting the meaning. When I joined the forum there were a few people who helped me. One was Mr Sangom who told me how this forum operates etc. He was a scholar. The other was Mr tks who always answered by questions. I know he goes to India to take time off to study scriptures. I personally do not know anything more about either one other than their real names and where they live. Hence I place more value to their writings (though they both never really agreed with each other's views).

I have responded to you. You have not replied with content in this whole thread.

Now respond with content to the challenges thrown to you .
Post 55, 22, and 23 to name just a few.

Here is one from post 23

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??

 

[a-TB]

These three quotes were provided in response to sri tks' statement in the "Bhaja Govindam thread" that Sankara would have never used "disrespectful" words for the opposition. They were just provided as a direct response on that thread.

The challenge was already issued for you to see the context (entire passage) of these quotes and to see whom the word "manda buddhis" apply there. It is the stated advaita position that dualists are those who dont have the intellect to meditate on the nirguna brahman. Dualist acharyas who consider their God forms as reality and surrender to that God as the ultimate goal, certainly consider being called "Manda buddhis" as disrespectful and they have responded in kind in their own literature.

This is logically wrong at several levels.

1. Who takes the Advita position ? Is that to insult others like you do when you are shown as illogical. No enlightened person would name call a dualist or anyone for their beliefs. Here you are projecting your thoughts

2. You have made another clueless statement that one needs intellect to meditate on Nirguna Brahman. Your own example from BrahmaSutra Bhashyam invalidates this and that meditating on (Nirguna) Brahman has nothing to do with level of intellect.

3. Most of the world follow dualism. This includes Nobel Laureates. They are intellectually inferior?? How ignorant is that message, Not sure if you really learned anything from your Guru other than look at his feet. Please do not share the name of your Guru because that will not be flattering to him

4. If Dualist call Sankara as Manda Buddhi that is understandable. But this cannot come from an enlightened person. There are lot of pseudo Advaita people who may call names of others

5. Sankara who is enlightened due to his writings (I dont have first hand knowledge but from someone I respect who provided the quote about your writing I shared) has never called anyone names. Delusion which is ignorance affects all human beings. That is not name calling. By asserting that Sankara calls names you have really insulted an enlightened teacher. May you come out of your delusion !

 

[KRN]

Your one example was refuted by Mr tks and you have no content response.

You keep parroting the above statement. I have already answered to sri tks's post yesterday. Did you see that? How can what sri tks wrote, and which you blindly copy pasted here, be a "context based refutation" when he was not addressing the context at all?

The other example was refuted by me.

If you simply say "I refute it", it doesnt become a refutal ! Get into the context of the quote and provide your reasons why the word "manda" in the context meant something vastly different from the derogatory meaning ascribed by sri tks. That was the challenge issued to you and which you have been evading all the while.

You have no response to what I wrote to one of them and what Mr tks wrote to you for which I offered you to counter (which you did not not and cannot)

I have responded to both of you yesterday, though neither deserve a response. The response to sri tks in post # 86, and the response to your nonsensical post too, a bit earlier.

Perhaps you should stop visiting this forum for a while and visit an ophthalmologist first.

#61 : Though you have not displayed the right attitude to learn in this thread let me take this opportunity to educate you. Mooda means delusion which is also same as ignorance. It does not have anything to do with intellectual capacity and is not derogatory.

LOL. Very good. Then go and inform sri tks about your findings. You have just refuted his contention that the word "Mooda" is derogatory

You have not provided a single cogent response to the queries and challenges put to you in #57, 59, 60, 61 and 69.

Here is one from post 23

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"

LOL. This was again answered already in #59. You should definitely see an ophthalmologist.

 

[KRN]

My opinion is that words and meanings (vAk+ artham) too evolve over a period and many of the words that have adverse connotations or stigma attached today did or might not have had that sting when such words were liberally being used. Adi Sankara did use the word “mooDA” but it might have not had the connotation of idiot or fool then, but meaning a mild word of “ignorant mind”.

I agree. That is why I reserve my opinion on whether the usage of the word "Mooda" in Bhaja Govindam was derogatory or not. However I felt that Sankara was unusually harsh on Buddha.

From what I have read, Adi Sankara's favourite word for his opponents is "paNditam manyamAnah" - not Mooda, Manda etc

Jaya Jaya Sankara !

The word mooDA was quite freely used by authorities other than Sankara, and I give two such examples:

Of course - and I am sure Vyasa Bharatam will provide many many more instances.

in Vishnu Sahasra nAmam BhAshyam, Sri Sankara verbatim quotes two sentences attributed to Lord Shiva in Bhavishyottara Puranam (that too twice):

I do love this part of the Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashyam, where Sankara goes into great lengths, providing quotations from a wide variety of sources, to establish many ideas, including the unity of Vishnu and Siva. I am referring to the Sankara bhashyam to the sloka

पवित्राणां पवित्रं यो मङ्गलानां च मङ्गलम् |
दैवतं दैवतानां च भूतानां योऽव्ययः पिता ||

which spans several pages.

In one of the books (I guess, the book Vishnu Sahasranama : A Study, by TMP Mahadevan) the author mentions Kanchi Mahaperiyavaa suggesting that copies of the Bhashyam to this slokam alone be printed, and distributed amongst aasthikas, as a punya karma.

Sringeri ShAradA Mutt is considered to be numero uno institution by traditionalists in propogating views of Adi Sankara with authenticity and with accuracy. The translation of the first slOkA of Bhaja Govindam as provided by Sringeri vidyA BhArathi Foundation can be found here:

http://svbf.org/newsletters/year-2013/bhajagovindam-i/

The translation would not have found its place at the above site if it had not been vetted by the pandits and vidhwAns of Sringeri Mutt.

Better to base argument, discussion or debate on authentic sources than translations provided by amateur members of our forum or anon sources, howsoever well learned we may consider them to be.

I think this is very good advice, as time is precious and could be devoted much more effectively. Accordingly I am stopping my further involvement in arguments or discussions on the interpretations provided by sri tks and others, in this forum.

 

[a-TB]

You keep parroting the above statement. I have already answered to sri tks's post yesterday. Did you see that? How can what sri tks wrote, and which you blindly copy pasted here, be a "context based refutation" when he was not addressing the context at all?



If you simply say "I refute it", it doesnt become a refutal ! Get into the context of the quote and provide your reasons why the word "manda" in the context meant something vastly different from the derogatory meaning ascribed by sri tks. That was the challenge issued to you and which you have been evading all the while.



I have responded to both of you yesterday, though neither deserve a response. The response to sri tks in post # 86, and the response to your nonsensical post too, a bit earlier.

Perhaps you should stop visiting this forum for a while and visit an ophthalmologist first.



LOL. Very good. Then go and inform sri tks about your findings. You have just refuted his contention that the word "Mooda" is derogatory

You have not provided a single cogent response to the queries and challenges put to you in #57, 59, 60, 61 and 69.



LOL. This was again answered already in #59. You should definitely see an ophthalmologist.

You equate Manda and Mooda, not anyone else.

Mooda means delusion as explained by Mr TKS and validated by your own references. You lack understanding and hence stuck on a position.

Even I with no formal background is able to see Sankara has a style where he puts forward prevailing ideas as Purvapaksha only to refute them, Mr TKS was doing the same and you could not understand that and stuck with the Purvapaksha.

Your response in #59 asked me to tell you where I got the idea that Brahman is infinite. It is like asking me to show proof why earth is going around the sun.

Either you are truly uninformed or that is the best come back you could think of. That is sad.

Brahman is referred to as Satyam , Jnanam and Anatham. It is in one of the Upanishad (Taittriya I think). Anantham means limitless or infinite,

Question to you was how can finite mind meditate and understand infinite Brahman. Do you comprehend the question?

I doubt you will have any clue as to how to answer such basic questions.

You say you responded to one of you other examples where word Mooda occurred in the Bhashyam. Well it seems you did not understand Mr TKS response. You are confused why he quoted a mantra etc. Well how can Dakshinamurthi sloka can be talking about cosmology? I do not know and neither do you . So we both are Manda buddhi with respect to that.

But the quote you had from Manukya was actually saying such people who may not know such things can simply meditate on OM.

There was no name calling implied with the use of the word Mooda. So for whatever reason you tried come back with those two examples missed the mark and are actually irrelevant.

I did not refute any of Mr TKS contention. I was only echoing what he had stated which you could not obviously comprehend.

Well if I were you , I would take the feedback seriously if you want to improve and really know what these teachings mean. It requires critical thinking skills and also humility to admit when you do not know something. I hope you get that wisdom soon. All the best

 

[a-TB]

Sringeri ShAradA Mutt is considered to be numero uno institution by traditionalists in propogating views of Adi Sankara with authenticity and with accuracy. The translation of the first slOkA of Bhaja Govindam as provided by Sringeri vidyA BhArathi Foundation can be found here:

http://svbf.org/newsletters/year-2013/bhajagovindam-i/

The translation would not have found its place at the above site if it had not been vetted by the pandits and vidhwAns of Sringeri Mutt.

Better to base argument, discussion or debate on authentic sources than translations provided by amateur members of our forum or anon sources, howsoever well learned we may consider them to be.

In addition to change of meaning to words (and increase/decrease of their severity), we also should understand the peer pressure faced or voluntarily undertaken by Hindus in defending their heritage and literature in foreign soil. The peer pressure often leads to fallacial, fanciful and on many occasions creative translations so as to toe the moral ethos and standards of Western society today by retrofitting meanings etc. of our scriptures written millennia earlier.

This is the primary reason for many nonsensical translations at numerous websites. Unfortunate though it is, some members of this forum have also fallen victim to this..

Mr Zebra,

As explained earlier the website svbf.org is associated with a temple in USA that was financially rescued by Sringeri Mutt.

The writer you quote is Indian born American citizen and has been in USA for many decades (no doubt knowledgeable). The vetting for articles are largely done locally. I asked someone I know who used to voluteer there.

So whatever conclusions you had about peer pressure is fanciful thinking. No one is defending anything. There are sincere students of scriptures everywhere.

Western society supports freedom of speech. If you saw actual examples of fanciful thinking in this forum and can explain with what you think is right, then it is possible to have a debate on that. I will look forward to that. I am usually suspicious of scholarship claims of anyone here.

There are nonsensical information in many sites and most originate in India.

Even the word Mooda = Ignorance is fine but better word is delusion because ignorance can apply to any knowledge. But delusion usage is much more seen only in Vedantic topics. Delusion which is seeing something that is not there (like you thinking that Western society puts peer pressure).

What made the west so powerful is because they truly respect knowledge regardless of where it came from. That is why in about 20 years of coming to USA, two Indians are CEOs of the most powerful Silicon Valley companies (with net worth reaching trillion dollars ) . There is racism but the desire for power and knowledge means they look for scholarship wherever it is available.

In India people are stuck in superstition and narrow minded thinking which is why the progress is so slow. This forum is special because it has people coming from all parts of the world.

 

[a-TB]

Unless I see some well thought out posts coming out of broadminded thinking, I think it will be waste of time for me to continue participating in this thread. If Mr TKS responds that would be welcome since I have some questions for him as well.

MrKRN can have a field day writing whatever he wants. It will be unchallenged at least in this thread.

 

[KRN]

Mooda means delusion as explained by Mr TKS and validated by your own references. You lack understanding and hence stuck on a position.

You are obfuscating the simplest of points.

My point - as expressed many times already - is this.

Sri tks considers the word Mooda derogatory and disrespectful.

Whether you translate it as "deluded" or anything else....the whole point is, it being considered derogatory.

If so, then why isnt "Manda Buddhi" as he refers to the dualists, a derogatory word too. To be considered a person of "low intellect" can as well be a derogatory reference.

This thread was opened solely to discuss the topic of "staged evolution" and you introduced this extraneous topic and have been entertaining with your cluelessness.

Your response in #59 asked me to tell you where I got the idea that Brahman is infinite. It is like asking me to show proof why earth is going around the sun.

I asked you that, to check your understanding.

The word Brahman means many thing to many people. In the scriptures, this word is used to indicate different things, depending on the context.

You have not answered the questions posed. In any case, the attitude you display while asking questions, already bar me from sharing any information

From the beginning of this thread, you have been confusing sri tks's views with my own and contesting his views. Despite me clarifying it many times, you continue to display your cluelessness of the topic.

I have been sufficiently entertained and I have nothing else to discuss here with you. Good bye.