• 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.

To the younger generation on this forum: Do you prefer following the Neo-Vedanta version of Hinduism versus the orthodox version?

Back to tradition is a better thing because genetically we are inclined towards one style. Slowly only we are evolving. Anything to get imbibed it needs time, environment and a change in the mind set. It is better to be inside the fence and see the outside world than standing up on the edge of a wall without knowing when will you fall down the other side or will be saved by standing in the middle. I hope every one understand. It is just like our culture is sitting just like a cat on the wall not knowing which side to jump. It is always safe to jump where the damage to our culture is less. In order to preserve our culture, first we have to observe some of the best things, educate our younger more on the rational side explaining some of the things at least rather than just asking them to follow ritually. Even if followed ritually also some of them will give benefits but our inquisitive nature will not allow us to remain peaceful and make us to tread our path and then realize it is always better to follow the proven path rather than going in a way where we are not familiar and no one to accompany us even if we fall down and no one to take responsibility to uplift us.When we lived in a village, it is a safe surrounding. Slowly we moved into town and cities. Still we by nature, we try to live the way we have been brought up till the age of 12 even if we reach the age of 50. Whatever we learnt in the middle ages, we tend to find what is wrong in that way of living and again do our way the ancestors lived.
 
It is better to live the traditional way rather than experimenting and finding out every thing we tried new failed and in the end we want only peace of mind. Therefore it is better to live in the back to tradition mold rather than doing something which is alien to our culture.
 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
On the contrary, I say break all molds. The molds are straight Jackets somebody else put on us. If you do not beak the shackles you will never be free,

Playing it safe is playing the game not to lose. You need to play the game with an attitude of winning.
I am not saying that you have to be a rebel at everything. But unless you have seen the outer edges how would you know your potential.

WE never tried to climb Everest, then one person tried it, and then many more followed.
Similarly, Adi Sankaracharya reformed Hinduism by breaking away from tradition.
In the financial world, a CD is a sedate, and safe bet, but you accept a lower return and you will never be rich (or stay poor). On the other hand, if you venture out and create a new product, or invest in financial products like Stocks, etc, you can live comfortably.

जिन ढूँढा तिन पाइयाँ, गहिरे पानी पैठ जो बौरा डूबन डरा, रहा किनारे बैठ कबीर #Kabir Dive deep to find what you want Don't be afraid of failure
 
OP
OP
P

prveeraraghavan

New member
On the contrary, I say break all molds. The molds are straight Jackets somebody else put on us. If you do not beak the shackles you will never be free,

Playing it safe is playing the game not to lose. You need to play the game with an attitude of winning.
I am not saying that you have to be a rebel at everything. But unless you have seen the outer edges how would you know your potential.

WE never tried to climb Everest, then one person tried it, and then many more followed.
Similarly, Adi Sankaracharya reformed Hinduism by breaking away from tradition.
In the financial world, a CD is a sedate, and safe bet, but you accept a lower return and you will never be rich (or stay poor). On the other hand, if you venture out and create a new product, or invest in financial products like Stocks, etc, you can live comfortably.

जिन ढूँढा तिन पाइयाँ, गहिरे पानी पैठ जो बौरा डूबन डरा, रहा किनारे बैठ कबीर #Kabir Dive deep to find what you want Don't be afraid of failure
I don't think Adi Sankara broke tradition. While he did introduce us to Advaita, he will still a very strong ritualist. Otherwise, his parampara would be a lot more like Chinmayananda rather than having very traditional views about the Shastras.
 

tbs

Well-known member
I don't think Adi Sankara broke tradition. While he did introduce us to Advaita, he will still a very strong ritualist. Otherwise, his parampara would be a lot more like Chinmayananda rather than having very traditional views about the Shastras.

hi

i agreed...he did advaita philosophy....but in his early years....he was more ritualist.....he established

as NIRGUNA BRAHMAN.....BUT IN REAL....HE WAS MORE SAGUNA BRAHMAN...he composed many

slokams based all SIX systems of worship deities....he was more sakta and devi upasaka....even his

matams follows basically devi based systems....kanchi kamakshi or sringeri sharadamba....
 
This sight is all too common.

And people, these days, going straight to restaurants after a haircut. If you stay in Chennai, you know that in
most restaurants, in addition to the ceiling fans, they have huge/ powerful pedestal fans going at full blast. Any 'clean up dusting' done in the saloon after a haircut is only superficial. Do they consider the high probability of loose hairs from their bodies and clothes mixing with the food items of other diners?
Sadly, for many people (these days) all traditional beliefs/ practices (including hygienic practices) are irrational and they are ready to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'.

While, not everything 'old is gold' some traditional practices are good even today and possibly will be good even tomorrow!
Our our traditional ways and customs is always good and more scientific. It is not. Our custom to cut the cake on birthday. Unfortunate part is the elder s have no knowledge and how can they pass on to new generation
 

usaiyer

Active member
Aadi Shankara was trying to project the right perspective of our Santana dharma ,and hence gave due importance to
rituals,saguna,nirguna concepts.
and also the essence of advaitha philosophy. He however condemned only ritualism and people who tried to take advantage of society on this count.
Kanchi periyava also was not a ritualist ,but a staunch believer
of traditions ,,social aspects of religion ,His book on Deivathin
Kural is treatise on Hinduism and Hindu Philosophy based on the broad guidelines of AdhiSankara.
 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Adi Shankaracharya was an Indian philosopher and theologian who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta. He is credited with unifying and establishing the main currents of thought in Hinduism.

His works in Sanskrit discuss the unity of the Ātman and Nirguna Brahman "brahman without attributes". He wrote copious commentaries on the Vedic canon (Brahma Sutras, Principal Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita) in support of his thesis. His works elaborate on ideas found in the Upanishads. Shankara's publications criticised the ritually-oriented Mīmāṃsā school of Hinduism. He also explained the key difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, stating that Hinduism asserts "Ātman (Soul, Self) exists", while Buddhism asserts that there is "no Soul, no Self".

Shankara travelled across the Indian subcontinent to propagate his philosophy through discourses and debates with other thinkers. He established the importance of monastic life as sanctioned in the Upanishads and Brahma Sutra, in a time when the Mīmāṃsā school established strict ritualism and ridiculed monasticism.

 
OP
OP
P

prveeraraghavan

New member
Aadi Shankara was trying to project the right perspective of our Santana dharma ,and hence gave due importance to
rituals,saguna,nirguna concepts.
and also the essence of advaitha philosophy. He however condemned only ritualism and people who tried to take advantage of society on this count.
Kanchi periyava also was not a ritualist ,but a staunch believer
of traditions ,,social aspects of religion ,His book on Deivathin
Kural is treatise on Hinduism and Hindu Philosophy based on the broad guidelines of AdhiSankara.
Everything I've read in Deivathin Kural is basically criticizing Brahmins who don't do Vedic rituals. If that was all based on Adi Sankara's guidelines, then it is proof Adi Sankara was a staunch ritualist, despite his promotion of Advaita philosophy.

I think Adi Sankara's ideology is that the only way to acheive the truths of Advaita is by following rituals first.
 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Adi Shankaracharya, the great Philosopher was born in 788 CE, Kaladi, Present in Kerala. He died in 820 CE at the early age of 32 only in Kedarnath, Pala Empire, Present in Uttarakhand. Shankaracharya was a noted Philosopher and theologizer from India. He reformed the rituals and doctrines in Hinduism, which were followed blindly by Hindus in those days. The Famous Philosopher Adi Shankara profoundly believes in the concept of Vedas”. He advocated against the rituals and religious practices.

Adi Sankara traveled far and wide in search of a worthy guru, who can remove the bigotries and make him the learner of Spiritual Knowledge. Finally, he reached the bank of the Narmada river and reached the Asrama of Govinda Bhagavatpada, the renowned guru and the disciple of Gaudapada, who wrote the Mandukyakarikas. Govinda accepts Adi Sankara as his disciple. With the guidance and teachings of Govinda Bhagavatpada, Jagadguru Adi Shankaracharya attained spiritual knowledge, and also gained the concepts of Jana, Raja, and “Hatha Yoga. And then he received the knowledge of Brahma Sutras. After the permission of his Guru, Adiguru Shankara Charya left the Ashram and traveled all over India to spreads the Brahma Sutras.

 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Pavan Verma in his writing believes:
What they don't understand is that Hinduism itself teaches you to be secular."

Taking the argument further, he adds, "We have to know that Upanishads were penned down over 4,000 years ago in a dialogic manner in forest academies between gurus and disciples; subsequently, in the Brahma Sutras, the commentaries would first have the views of the opponents, followed by the position of the Vedanta." Hinduism could reconcile the differences, including those with Charvakas and tantriks, he says, through shastra has, debates and dialogues. "One person encompassing all these civilizational values was Shankaracharya," he says explaining the book's raison d'etre.

Calling Shankara a "true rebel", Varma reminds how the monk called a Chandala he met in Kashi his guru. "For me, it was an eye-opener to see Shankara, a Namboodiripad Brahmin, refuting the caste system. He, in fact, went to the extent of not even accepting the authority of the Vedas, the Varnasrama system, and the Char Dham," he says. The monk's relationship with his mother also showed his rebellious streak. For, being a sannyasi didn't stop him from serving his mother at the fag end of her life. "Being the only child, he came back from his renunciation to serve her.

Maybe his attachment with his mother was the reason for his Devi/Shakti worship, though he remained an avowed Vedantist all through his life," he reminds. For all his talk of 'nirgun' (attributeless) and 'nirakar' (abstract) God, and the world being an illusion, it was Shankara who set up 12 jyotirlingas, 18 shakti-peethas, and four Vishnu-dhaams to create all-India pilgrim centers that defined the nation as one civilizational entity.

Varma, however, doesn't see this as a contradiction. "Shankara divided the jnana marga (path of knowledge) into two levels - para vidya (higher knowledge), where the primary concern was the metaphysical comprehension of the absolute; and apara vidya (lower knowledge), where bhakti, yoga, and ritual were given legitimacy. He saw the latter as part of the preparatory steps to move from apara to para vidya."

Shankara, for the author, is also a reminder of how sophisticated the Indian thought system was, though he has nothing but contempt for what he calls "the Dinanath Batra-style of scholarship", which invents flying machines and test-tube babies in ancient times. Terming India the "guiding light" of what he calls 'maulik jnana' (original thinking), Varma reminds us how at a time when scientists are not ruling out the possibility of multiverses, the notion of Brahman being infinite seems so contemporary.

"Shankara's concept of the Vedantic absolute, all-pervasive, beyond boundaries, and cosmic in scale, seems akin to the modern scientific interpretation of the space," he says, adding that Stephen Hawking could well have been the disciple of Shankara, had he been aware of Indian philosophical traditions. Ironically, it was Hawking who pompously claimed a few years ago that "philosophy is dead". And if one reads his book, The Grand Design, he - again paradoxically - appears closer to Shankara than to his counterparts obsessed with Newtonian determinism.

"Hawking might have been surprised to discover how much of what modern science has revealed, particularly in the areas of cosmology, quantum physics, and neurology, was anticipated by Shankara more than a millennium ago," signs off the writer-diplomat, cautioning on the growing culture of unrestrained shrill and 'dialogue lessness' in the otherwise argumentative nation.

 
OP
OP
P

prveeraraghavan

New member
Pavan Verma in his writing believes:
What they don't understand is that Hinduism itself teaches you to be secular."

Taking the argument further, he adds, "We have to know that Upanishads were penned down over 4,000 years ago in a dialogic manner in forest academies between gurus and disciples; subsequently, in the Brahma Sutras, the commentaries would first have the views of the opponents, followed by the position of the Vedanta." Hinduism could reconcile the differences, including those with Charvakas and tantriks, he says, through shastra has, debates and dialogues. "One person encompassing all these civilizational values was Shankaracharya," he says explaining the book's raison d'etre.

Calling Shankara a "true rebel", Varma reminds how the monk called a Chandala he met in Kashi his guru. "For me, it was an eye-opener to see Shankara, a Namboodiripad Brahmin, refuting the caste system. He, in fact, went to the extent of not even accepting the authority of the Vedas, the Varnasrama system, and the Char Dham," he says. The monk's relationship with his mother also showed his rebellious streak. For, being a sannyasi didn't stop him from serving his mother at the fag end of her life. "Being the only child, he came back from his renunciation to serve her.

Maybe his attachment with his mother was the reason for his Devi/Shakti worship, though he remained an avowed Vedantist all through his life," he reminds. For all his talk of 'nirgun' (attributeless) and 'nirakar' (abstract) God, and the world being an illusion, it was Shankara who set up 12 jyotirlingas, 18 shakti-peethas, and four Vishnu-dhaams to create all-India pilgrim centers that defined the nation as one civilizational entity.

Varma, however, doesn't see this as a contradiction. "Shankara divided the jnana marga (path of knowledge) into two levels - para vidya (higher knowledge), where the primary concern was the metaphysical comprehension of the absolute; and apara vidya (lower knowledge), where bhakti, yoga, and ritual were given legitimacy. He saw the latter as part of the preparatory steps to move from apara to para vidya."

Shankara, for the author, is also a reminder of how sophisticated the Indian thought system was, though he has nothing but contempt for what he calls "the Dinanath Batra-style of scholarship", which invents flying machines and test-tube babies in ancient times. Terming India the "guiding light" of what he calls 'maulik jnana' (original thinking), Varma reminds us how at a time when scientists are not ruling out the possibility of multiverses, the notion of Brahman being infinite seems so contemporary.

"Shankara's concept of the Vedantic absolute, all-pervasive, beyond boundaries, and cosmic in scale, seems akin to the modern scientific interpretation of the space," he says, adding that Stephen Hawking could well have been the disciple of Shankara, had he been aware of Indian philosophical traditions. Ironically, it was Hawking who pompously claimed a few years ago that "philosophy is dead". And if one reads his book, The Grand Design, he - again paradoxically - appears closer to Shankara than to his counterparts obsessed with Newtonian determinism.

"Hawking might have been surprised to discover how much of what modern science has revealed, particularly in the areas of cosmology, quantum physics, and neurology, was anticipated by Shankara more than a millennium ago," signs off the writer-diplomat, cautioning on the growing culture of unrestrained shrill and 'dialogue lessness' in the otherwise argumentative nation.

Very interesting read.

I wonder what happened in the parampara that the message/thinking is so different from what Adi Sankara believed.
 

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Around the time of Shankaracharya, southern India had started a Bhakti movement (centered on prayer and devotion). These were however at the fringes of Hinduism. Until that time, Hinduism had more emphasis on the ritualistic and yogistic elements.

Shankara saw that the masses could not be kept interested in the religion without the power of the prayer. The different yogas and upanishads were way too complex for the common man.

Shankara enabled the integration of the fledgling Bhakti movement with the Vedic part of traditional Hinduism. He talked like they were two sides of the same coin. He had the Vedic authority that the other Bhakti movement propagators didn't have. He had a zeal that the other sanyasis and pundits didn't have. Thus, Hinduism quickly brought back the masses to the fold.

Unlike the other Vedic scholars before him - who mostly stressed on dhyana, mukti, yoga and sanyasa, Shankara had a coup in saying that these were same as worshipping Krishna directly.

 

Mani_Chennai

Active member
What's the revulsion you're feeling? I didn't follow.

I said aacharams/traditions like echhal make sense. But some don't. I don't know what the day of cutting your hair/nails has anything to do with science, morals, or dharm.
These rituals were created when Brahmans were poor, lived in small villages, did not have advanced higher studies and so on. So, they felt to follow the old ways. But they were clever in that they included Ayurveda (medicine at that time), health, environment protection, economics, personal hygiene, cooperation, societal cohesion and other things. Social cooperation was a norm. But they did not write down every thing. Based on their observation and statistically good results (not always) they merged every thing into one big ritual. Our climate and tropical status also dictated many of our rituals.



Also, there were limited number of family barbers(sorry to use the term – hair artists)), who were also medicine men hence needed for that professional part too, Dhobhis(cloth washing experts) etc., so they were paid in paddy or some other form which were in short supply. Also astrology (whether we like it or not) played a part in deciding procedures. Though poor, they still wanted the children to have sweet and other eatables, thus every month they had one or two special days or festivals or religious functions.

Now every body has money(almost ever body), have higher education(??), better job, live in cities, no joint family, can buy anything at any time and so on, the old ways appear to be nonsense. But behind all of them there were reasoning but not explained to the next generation or next generation did not ask for explanation. Personal hygiene was the reason to tell not to lick and touch things. You can see in the West, they will taste with a spoon and use the same spoon to stir the cooking time! Imagine you mother licks her hand and put it to take a handful of banana curry in you plate! Will you like it? Banana leaves were used water was sprinkled around to prevent ants(in olden days, now we kill them with DDT powder etc), we use to drink three spoon full water to wet our dry throats otherwise we may chock… endless practical reasons.



Now how did I know. I was curious and will ask any one and every one for the reasoning. I was amazed that every one had some answer or knowledge but none had all.

So, when you say nonsense you show your ignorance and not curiosity which is sad and some times you will pay a heavy price for it. Grand parents are part of the growth and welfare of the children (bad ones are not), but now they are thrown out and the children grow unruly and become antisocial.

The choice is yours and no one cares what you feel or what is your opinion since you are not paying the salary of others nor others are paying you. You must travel around India and learn things which West does not have it, excepting our 95 % corruption
 

Mani_Chennai

Active member
I KNOW MANY OF MY RELATIVE GUYS WHO ARE INTO IT SECTOR AND MOVED TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND HAVE FORGOTTEN OUR CULTURE DUE TO EITHER THE LIFE STYLE THERE OR BECAUSE OF SHYNESS AS KEEPING VIBUTHI ON FOREHEAD AND GOING TO OFFICE IS FELT STRANGE BY SOME OF THEM. HOW TO CORRECT THEM IS REALLY A QUESTION MARK


While in Rome be a Roman is the norm. Wearing religious symbols - Vibhudi, Namam, sand dot etc., make you look dangerous to others. We also feel the same way say, if a Kapalika comes with the skull of a dead person toour house. We like homegenity and if some one looks odd, we feel he or she is dangerous. Sardarji's for example, are perceived as decoits or Barbarians in the West and do not distinguish them away from Pakistanis. A Jew with skull cap looks like a mean guy to non Jews. So, keep the religion to yourself at home within the four walls. That does not mean you are not a Hindu, rather you are smart survivalist.

Adi Shankar's time is gone. He wanted to society to be only ritual oriented (Mimamskas) and even he had a shock to realize that without realizing he was practicing untouchability. He did not say don’t marry, have kids etc., but said once you have completely fulfilled your duty as a pro creator (Brahma-Saraswati), protector (Vishnu-Laxmi) and remover of ignorance (Parameswaran-Parvathi), you will be in general(not every one) prepared to search for your purpose of live- who am I etc. That maturity - I was a father, brother, son, husband, employee etc., but which one is me? I was just role playing, but what is my real identity. This is what Vanaprastam and search for truth. Aham Brahmasmi comes to only those who have gone through life and having fully filled all their social obligations.

Now, we live in a time were physical knowledge to survive in the phsical-chemcical-biological-social economical.... life and never get detached from our ego in that without us the world will come to a stand still we don't say this open, rather behave in that way). We do not remove ourselves form the life of our children but give them love when they need. Careful study of Shanka is still applicable with modification for the current time. Those who can see it are happy, travel, do pilgrimage, reduce physical processions and serve others. Others lament and suffer. The main reason is the society in India has 1.28 crore people, when Adi Shankara was there may be a few crores lived in India.

Adi Shankara taught us the Philosophy of Hinduism and rituals were added as the first step and not the ultimate goal. We only now cling to the rituals as our symbol of Hinduism and forget striving to search for the purpose or legacy of our life. We run behind ritual mirage as our identify.
 

Mani_Chennai

Active member

prveeraraghavan: I took time to read your question here. Do you think youngeneration become member of this forum and read your posting? So, your queestion has to be directed forum where younger generation are members.​

Your views are your personal ones and they do not affect any thing, even your own children(if any). But if you have asked a general question and stated this is my view , can any one throw more light on it, would be an appropriate question. No Shankara is living to answer your question nor no one cares. Shankara himself fought against blind "Yangna" Meemaamsa method. Religion is dynamic and does not dictate what you should do , accept reject etc. It is neutral. What it says is, if you are unhappy find methods to calm down your inner turmoil, accept that there are many invisible forces beyond your control that affect your actions - called side effects; find GOD in every thing and every where. Do you want to eat meat or not is based on your empathy to animals which play a role in our life and so on.

Also without realizing you are showing your arrogance “me, I..” and if you are asking clarification and want to understand the underlying rituals, then you need to be polite. Hindu religion, rather philosophy tells us to see GOD everywhere and in every thing. Some rituals are group binding and to prevent alzheimer, dementia etc. People always remember the past in such cases and ask for recitals when they are dying.

For example whether you chant mantra, old devotional songs or not is not important, but by chanting you exercise your brain and memory and recalling the past peacefully but no one knows if GOD is pleased with you. Since He/She is within you along with your Atman, you feel happy at least for a short time away from your daily mundane activities.

Alright, it may seem that I am attacking you, but be assured I gain nothing by doing it nor happy. But when you are hurt, you will realize that “every action action has an equal and opposite reaction” will be invoked.

We need to realize that life is dynamic and our religion is adaptive in nature with core values always being present- see GOD in every thing and nature, respect elders, learning is life long, control our breath and then concentrate in mindfulness, cleanliness from body moves to the cleanliness of mind and rituals are the first step in it. But once you have wisdom, nothing is important.

You can see that even now in general, we offer something to drink to our guests, because at least some of us believe that “Atiti Devo Bhava”. How do we know that GOD is not coming as our guest to test our devotion? The West now is understanding “hospitality” always starts with simple gestures. Are gestures only found in Hindus? We don’t know.
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member

prveeraraghavan: I took time to read your question here. Do you think youngeneration become member of this forum and read your posting? So, your queestion has to be directed forum where younger generation are members.​

Your views are your personal ones and they do not affect any thing, even your own children(if any). But if you have asked a general question and stated this is my view , can any one throw more light on it, would be an appropriate question. No Shankara is living to answer your question nor no one cares. Shankara himself fought against blind "Yangna" Meemaamsa method. Religion is dynamic and does not dictate what you should do , accept reject etc. It is neutral. What it says is, if you are unhappy find methods to calm down your inner turmoil, accept that there are many invisible forces beyond your control that affect your actions - called side effects; find GOD in every thing and every where. Do you want to eat meat or not is based on your empathy to animals which play a role in our life and so on.

Also without realizing you are showing your arrogance “me, I..” and if you are asking clarification and want to understand the underlying rituals, then you need to be polite. Hindu religion, rather philosophy tells us to see GOD everywhere and in every thing. Some rituals are group binding and to prevent alzheimer, dementia etc. People always remember the past in such cases and ask for recitals when they are dying.

For example whether you chant mantra, old devotional songs or not is not important, but by chanting you exercise your brain and memory and recalling the past peacefully but no one knows if GOD is pleased with you. Since He/She is within you along with your Atman, you feel happy at least for a short time away from your daily mundane activities.

Alright, it may seem that I am attacking you, but be assured I gain nothing by doing it nor happy. But when you are hurt, you will realize that “every action action has an equal and opposite reaction” will be invoked.

We need to realize that life is dynamic and our religion is adaptive in nature with core values always being present- see GOD in every thing and nature, respect elders, learning is life long, control our breath and then concentrate in mindfulness, cleanliness from body moves to the cleanliness of mind and rituals are the first step in it. But once you have wisdom, nothing is important.

You can see that even now in general, we offer something to drink to our guests, because at least some of us believe that “Atiti Devo Bhava”. How do we know that GOD is not coming as our guest to test our devotion? The West now is understanding “hospitality” always starts with simple gestures. Are gestures only found in Hindus? We don’t know.
Chanting isnt just an exercise for memory and brain though it does help.

Mantras are cryptograms, where it has the ability to " inner engineer" our whole system.( mananat trayate iti mantra...sustained repetition protects)
Whether we know the meaning of the mantra or not, it makes no difference because meaning is only for the intellect but not the consciousness.
(Consciousness isn't the same as intelligence)

Also mantras will eventually decode itself to the one who recites it with shraddha and bhakti and the adhyatma( esoteric) meaning is revealed to the reciter.

To those who recite it mechanically sans shraddha and bhakti, mostly it wont really have that much effect though many times we see the ahamkara increasing.

Once the cryptogram mantras starts decoding itself to the reciter, he would gain true knowledge in the form of flashes of illuminative esoteric messages which do not traverse the intellect, then the Ocean of Existence "parts" to reveal to us the pathless path of self realization where one walks alone yet complete.

Summary: Mantras are not merely exercises for the brain and memory.
 
Last edited:

Mani_Chennai

Active member
Chanting isnt just an exercise for memory and brain though it does help.

Mantras are cryptograms, where it has the ability to " inner engineer" our whole system.( mananat trayate iti mantra...sustained repetition protects)
Whether we know the meaning of the mantra or not, it makes no difference because meaning is only for the intellect but not the consciousness.
(Consciousness isn't the same as intelligence)

Also mantras will eventually decode itself to the one who recites it with shraddha and bhakti and the adhyatma( esoteric) meaning is revealed to the reciter.

To those who recite it mechanically sans shraddha and bhakti, mostly it wont really have that much effect though many times we see the ahamkara increasing.

Once the cryptogram mantras starts decoding itself to the reciter, he would gain true knowledge in the form of flashes of illuminative esoteric messages which do not traverse the intellect, then the Ocean of Existence "parts" to reveal to us the pathless path of self realization where one walks alone yet complete.

Summary: Mantras are not merely exercises for the brain and memory.
Thanks for value added comment.
 

shankarkrupa

New member
What are the achara and anushtana vidhigal, as you define it?
I am not qualified to eloborate exhaustively, but yet acharam as I see are guidelines advised and practiced by our ancestors that we have observed in a given circumstance/event. Anushtana vidhigal as I see as a pattern are routines practiced.
 

Mani_Chennai

Active member
In simple language first clean your body and the steps to do it and then follow that in daily life with prayer etc. My grand mother once told me that you should not touch my wet cloth drying in the rod. I asked why. She smiled and said, if I allow in your hurry you will dry your wet hand in it and then every one follow that without thinking and my sari will always be dirty and wet. So, my acharam is - don't others drying cloths.
Logically it makes sense. The same way, don't touch with a hand with food or anything that you just put in mouth, it is dirty. Hygene!
Don't strech your leg before elders - you may trip them and accident may happen.

It seems, all these rules for hygene and proper behviour may look stupid but if you consider historical times, they were necessary. Does any one clean their dirty hand on their towel or dothi? That is acharam.
Routinely fllowing acharam is anushtanam(following). Most of them are very valid even today.
You cannot lick some thing and put your hand on that item and with COVID you will be Govinda.
Unfortunately we practice without explaining things and whether we will argue (as usual, did GOD follow these etc) and due our partial western thinking and bookish schooling , will not follow any rules whether it is following a queue or acharam and and anushtanam.
We are in transition phase in India - Trisangu - neither West nor East.
 
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks