 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
[ ... ]
> translation by A.G. Warrier:
>
> Know it -- the procedure by which knowledge is won. Approaching teachers,
> lowly prostrating the whole body before them -- this is obesiance -- and
> exhaustively questioning them, learn it. Learn it by putting questions such
> as these. 'How comes bondage? How, liberation? What is knowledge? And what,
> nescience?' The teachers, the knowers of Brahman, thus won over through
> humility, will instruct or impart the knowledge described above. Some among
> them alone are well-established in truth as it is; others are not. Hence
> the qualification 'who have realised the truth'. Only the knowledge
> imparted by those who have realised the truth is effective, not aught else.
> Such is the Lord's doctrine.
>
> (any errors in transliteration are my own)
>
> This seems to make it pretty clear that, even for the advaitist, acceptance
> of a real guru is necessary. That is, the guru must be a person who has the
> choice of whether or not to accept the disciple. The disciple can't simply
> claim that Brahman is his guru and thus evade the responsibility of taking
> initiation from a guru who can actually interact with the disciple. If such
> were the case, then Shrii Shankaraacaarya would not have bothered to make
> the distinction here between those who are well-established in truth vs
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> those who are not.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am not sure if you are saying that Lord Krishna or Lord Shiva are _not_
established in the truth. sha.nkara does not support that the guru has to be
present in physical form. 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. There is explicit shruti support in the shvetAshvatara Up. for
considering Ishvara as guru. 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.
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.
In any case I believe shruti (SU and DU) based on reasoning. Hare Krishna
wannabes may not have enough faith because, after all their faith is based on
non-existent verses from purANa-s and upanishhad-s, much like a hare's horn.
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.
Ramakrishnan.
--
http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|