• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Staged Evolution

zebra16

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Active member
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
 
Last edited:

a-TB

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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.
 
Last edited:

KRN

Active member
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.
 
Last edited:

a-TB

Well-known member
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

Active member
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".
 
Last edited:

KRN

Active member
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.
 

KRN

Active member
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]
 
Last edited:

KRN

Active member
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!
 
Last edited:

a-TB

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Active member
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.
 
Last edited:

KRN

Active member
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.
 
Last edited:

KRN

Active member
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.
 
Last edited:

Follow Tamil Brahmins on Social Media

Top