 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
While I'm sure anyone would agree that Lords Krishna and Shiva are
established in truth, the point should be made here that Shrii
Shankaraacaarya makes the distinction here between those who are
established in truth and those who are not -- if it were obvious that he
was talking only about Brahman, then there would be no need for him to make
such a distinction. Hence, we can be certain that he is speaking of
individuals other than Krishna or Shiva, or in other words, a person who is
physically present before us.
In any case this is typical mis-interpretation of my
> statements by you. If you had asked me to clarify my statements before I
would
> have, gladly.
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you..." seems applicable
here, though I confess I don't know who said it. You have never in the past
tried to clarify anything you heard from a Hare Krsna before you started
making fun of it. Why do you cry foul now?
In any case, it was not my intention to misinterpret you. Frankly, I
thought the statements you made earlier were quite clear, and hence there
was no possibility of misinterpretation. However, I can accept that your
views on this have also changed. But it was pretty clear that in the past
you had thumbed your nose at the very idea of accepting a personal guru.
There is explicit shruti support in the shvetAshvatara Up. for
> considering Ishvara as guru.
Yes, but this is not to the exclusion of accepting a personal guru.
Iishvara, being free of maayaa, is the ultimate guru, but how many people
can honestly claim to have His darshan on even a semiregular basis? Hence
the need for a guru who is a representative of Iishvara, teaching only what
He teaches.
I'm sure you agree that this is not an unreasonable statement. Surely you
are not saying that a neophyte can simply prostrate himself before a
Shivalinga and claim that Lord Shiva is instructing him in this way or
that.
Ishvara is described as shiva and rudra in the Up.
> Further the daxiNAmUrti Up. clearly says that if one is devoted to shiva
he
> will manifest as guru and clear all doubts.
None of this precludes the acceptance of a personal guru. Let me put it to
you this way: are you devoted to Shiva, and if so, did he manifest himself
before you as a person who can answer your doubts? If so, then you are
accepting a guru anyway. If not, then why not?
If this verse indicated that acceptance of someone as guru was not
necessary, then it would not have indicated that Shiva would bother to
manifest himself. After all, Shiva could just give you liberation instead
of giving you a guru.
> This is not to say that I haven't had any teachers at all. In any smArta
family
> the guru is traditionally the head of the maTha they are following. I was
> reluctant to say that I am a disciple of HH bhAratI tIrtha mahAsvAmigaL
only
> because I am only nominally so. In any case, you might know that people
can ask
> questions by letter and they reply quite promptly. My father has had some
> doubts cleared thus by HH abhinava vidyAtIrtha mahAsvAmigaL. In my recent
trip
> to Sringeri, I was able to get some doubt cleared by HH (admittedly a
very
> trivial thing, but nevertheless). Still this does not qualify me to say I
am a
> disciple, IMO, atleast. I try to follow the general guidelines given by
the
> svAmigaL-s for the present, since that's all I can do now.
Thanks for clearing this up. I won't find fault with you on this point if
you say that you are not a fully initiated disciple as long as you accept
the principle of accepting a guru. I brought this up because I take issue
with any worldview which supports, however implicitly or explicitly, the
idea that one can be his own guru. People who say that "God is my guru" are
usually just saying this, although not in so many words. The point I am
making here is that your ability to represent advaita is subordinate to the
authority of any initiated guru in your tradition. No one has any authority
to defy their own gurus and teach ideas that are at odds with the tradition
they claim to represent.
[token attacks against Hare Krsnas deleted]
> Now if you'll excuse me, I have had enough of Hare Krsna drivel like
"sruti
> is what is spoken by Krsna, smrti is what is spoken about Krsna" (sic).
I'll
> get back to deleting the posts of all Hare Krsna's and Hare Krsna
wannabes en
> masse, as I was doing a couple of months back. Ah, the joy of netscape
news.
> When I feel like reading some drivel I'll get back to reading Hare Krsna
> stuff.
My personal comedy favorites are some of the antics on the advaita mailing
list. There, one person earnestly wondered, since nonactivity is a
characteristic of liberation, are people who are in comas not more advanced
than those of us who are fully conscious? Then there was another guy whose
sig file read, "who am I apart from Thee?" All very entertaining. It's a
good thing I don't judge the merits of advaita from the behavior of people
like them or you.
regards,
-- K
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|