Who is the teacher? – Patrick Dunroven

I call myself an Advaitin, but lack the rigor of scriptural or linguistic (Sanskrit) study attained by other writers on this site. When I feel “left out”, I call myself a mystic or perhaps a Zen Buddhist. I am reminded of a recently told joke of a cowboy who sits down in a bar next to an attractive lady and is asked what he is.

“I am a cowboy. I rope and brand cows, fix fences, and break horses. Who are you? What do you do?”

“I am a lesbian. I dream of women, of running my hands all over them, of having ecstatic sex.” Continue reading

shrutisAra samuddharaNam (Part 4, final)

The shrutisAra samuddharaNam

of

shri toTakAchArya

An Overview by C.S.Baskaran
(Part 4 – final)

Read Part 3

 

 

Refutation of the claim by the Dvaitin that “A Principal statement like tat tvam asi is neither acceptable nor can be rejected. It does not serve any purpose”

A Principal sentence negates the identification with the three gross, subtle and causal bodies for the seriously inclined student of Vedanta and such identification is the cause of the birth and death cycle. It generates the knowledge of the self (which equates to liberation) instantaneously. If one can accept the God and Creation through the Veda pUrva (karma kANDa) texts, why not accept the same Vedas’ Principal statement “tat tvam asi” as equally valid? When a sincere seeker is taught a Principal statement like “tat tvam asi”, “aham brahmAsmi”, “ayam Atma brahman” etc, his or her own attachment to the body certainly goes away. But, in the case of ordinary people, the false notion continues, in spite of repeated hearing of the above texts. Without the removal of false identity with the body-mind-intellect complex the transmigratory existence through cycles of birth and death cannot end. Continue reading

shrutisAra samuddharaNam (Part 3)

The shrutisAra samuddharaNam

of

shri toTakAchArya

An Overview by C.S.Baskaran
(Part 3)

Read Part 2

In spite of the contradiction pointed out to his theory as above, the Dvaitin contends further that by the same argument the principal statement “tat tvam asi” renders the indwelling self unreal, in which case what is the difference between the two sentences   “mind is Brahman” and “indwelling self is Brahman”? This is answered as follows:

Taking the first sentence “mind is Brahman”, the relationship between the two words mind and Brahman is that of effect and cause. Hence we understand the unreality of the effect – the mind – as in the case of  “pot is clay”. As for the second, the indwelling self can never be created and never be born – only the body has birth. Continue reading

shrutisAra samuddharaNam (Part 2)

The shrutisAra samuddharaNam

of

shri toTakAchArya

An Overview by C.S.Baskaran
(Part 2)

Read Part 1

Identity of the Self and Brahman: The indwelling self is identical with the ever changeless Brahman – the pure existence consciousness. It is the cause of this Universe. The indwelling self (jIvAtman) is aware of both the ‘I’ thought (ahaMkAra ) and ‘this’ (idam- vRRitti ) that resolves in deep sleep. This is the central theme of this text. How such a statement is made, if asked, the answer is that it is not a contradiction as revealed by The Scriptures/ Upanishads. It is proved by shruti, pramANa, logic, and experience as in deep sleep. Seven such pramANa-s are referred to as follows. Continue reading

shrutisAra samuddharaNam

The shrutisAra samuddharaNam

of

shri toTakAchArya

An Overview by C.S.Baskaran

A rare and much less known secondary scripture shrutisAra samuddharaNam is a composition  by  Shri Totakacharya, one of the four disciples of Shri Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada. Though most of the secondary Scriptures are on the same subject of oneness of jIva and brahman, ideas basic to Advaita Vedanta, this work is unique in certain ways. Firstly, it is composed in a meter that is named after the AchArya as toTaka meter. These verses are melodious when sung with their breath-taking rhythm, they remind us of Sri Sankara’s famous bhaja govinda stotram. He elucidated the nature of Brahman as one and non-dual, real, knowledge and bliss through a number of scriptural texts. Secondly he does not refer to the mAyA concept that is important to Advaita Vedanta nor discuss the tenability of the reflection theory (bimba pratibimba vAda) nor the limitation theory (avachCheda vAda ). The reasons are the possibility of his explaining the oneness of inner self (jIva ) and supreme self ( brahman ) of Advaita Vedanta without resorting to those concepts. He later became the Pontiff of the Sankara Matt established by his Guru at Badari, North India. With the blessings of my Guru, I shall try to give a short overview of this text. Continue reading

OM: Its Purpose and Meaning – Janani (Jane Cleary)

The word OM is probably more likely to be recognized by its symbol, even though it is the sound of OM that is the point of focus whenever it is used. It comes from the Hindu scriptures known as the Vedas, which are as old as the Indian culture itself.

What is the language and derivation of OM? The word is in Sanskrit, the language of the Vedas, which according to tradition originated at the same time as the Vedas. OM as both a sound and a written symbol is deeply revered in the Hindu tradition, a fact that can be readily understood once its meaning and power are known. The repetition of the word produces a sound that emanates in the form of a benign and beneficent resonance. The symbol, when reverentially visualized, creates a steadying and calming influence on the mind. Moreover, it has these effects even when the meaning may not be fully understood. Continue reading

Neo-Advaita versus Traditional Vedanta

A highly subjective view

By Tan

Introduction

I was on the “spiritual quest” for more than 12 years after success in the material world did not keep its advertised promise of lasting happiness. I started my quest with Greek Philosophy, Krishnamurti, Taoism, Zen, Neurological Science and Physical Science and had read more books and attended more “satsangs” than I can mention without being thoroughly embarrassed. The quest led me in the final stages to “Neo-Advaita” and then in the end to Vedanta. I had spent the considerable amount of 3 -4  years in meetings – with so-called “Neo-Advaita“ teachers such as Tony Parsons, Karl Renz and only very recently had developed an interest in traditional Vedanta teaching. There I had spent some short time with the books of Dennis Waite whose friendly input had led me to Swami Dayananda, Swami Chinmayananda and in the end to James Swartz. I have no profound knowledge of Vedanta teaching methods nor an encompassing view of Vedanta, but can only report the impact of Vedanta once revealed by a true teacher such as James Swartz. Continue reading