Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Nagaraj

Pages: 1 ... 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 [136] 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 ... 342
General Discussion / Re: my musings
« on: December 05, 2012, 07:51:19 PM »
There are two types of people:

Those who come into a room and say, "Well, here I am!", and

those who say, "Ah, there you are".

Frederick L. Collins

I thought you are not going to continue this discussion anymore :)

      :) You have surely not read the bhasyas. Anumana as pramana is used where it can be used very clearly. Why are you again and again saying I am being unethical etc ?

I am really surprised that no other forum member feels this as incorrect !!

Dear Udai :) I may have not read those Bhashyas, anumAna pramAnAs etc... but i certainly do know how much I can convey! Please take break, i still do not have anything personal against you, we have had long discussions in the past as well :) you are missing one golden point from within. That is all i am saying.

I never denied your pointers, they are all good, but, it is just missing on something very basic that is very essential.

God Bless us all! We are all in the same journey.

with prayers,

Nagaraj, you better inquire if this is with a well meaning intention.
I will not continue this discussion anymore.

Dear Friend, the vEdic etiquette while discussion, tarka shAstra is to quote the vEda pramANa in its own words, but unfortunately you re-interpret and present it as your own. That is the point of focus! By the way, this whole discussion was not even about pramANA at all, if you closely see.

See so many instances, when you had min-interpreted the words of saints for proving your own point? This is unethical!

Who will deny the words of kAnci paramAcAryA? He is a pontiff and is a jagadhguru, master of shAsthrAs. But we should know how much we can convey on our own. Had you quoted the words of True Sage like these in various instances, alol these would not have transpired. But, you want to present the truth in your own words, that is the basic point, for your information. Kindly Introspect about these in your break!

Thanks for your clarifications Sri Graham,

It is unknown, if it is the same Ashtavakra or the same Janaka in both books. However In this version [Tripura Rahasya] it is clear though that Ashtavakra learns further from the Lady Hermit and thereafter from King Janaka Himself.

Infact, when the Lady Hermit speaks about the Truth, King Janaka was was able to grasp the Truth from Her but Ashtavakra still had doubts, for which King Janaka finally clarifies.

       :) did I say its true coz i say so ? I just said you can do your research. You can listen to Paramarthananda ji's lectures on pramanas if you want to.

You are potentially sending out wrong information, wrong knowledge and have a great potential to misguide others, This attitude to say that others can research is not a hallmark of good sAdhakA. Everybody does research, that is different matter. having said and expressed so many things, you cannot be so evasive and tell finally, that what you say is true and be irresponsible to what you have been expressing, and then when it comes to accountability, it is not nice conduct to say listen to Paramarthananda Ji's lectures and all.

That Buddha said it is in buddhist scriptures for sure :D LOL! Where else will it be.

Great comedy haha  :o

Regarding Sri Ramakrishna you can refer:
:) I got it in my first search :)

Please read it:

Sri Ramakrishna said to him: "Today I have given you my all and I am now only a poor fakir, possessing nothing. By this power you will do immense good in the world, and not until it is accomplished will you return." Henceforth the Master lived in the disciple.

Doubt, however, dies hard. After one or two days Narendra said to himself, "If in the midst of this racking physical pain he declares his Godhead, then only shall I accept him as an Incarnation of God." He was alone by the bedside of the Master. It was a passing thought, but the Master smiled. Gathering his remaining strength, he distinctly said, "He who was Rama and Krishna is now, in this body, Ramakrishna — but not in your Vedantic sense." Narendra was stricken with shame.

He did not say I am Rama and Krishna. and there is difference between what is actually quoted in the above source "He who was Rama and Krishna is now, in this body, Ramakrishna — but not in your Vedantic sense."

Please re-read once again and discern.

General Discussion / Re: Common Discussion
« on: December 05, 2012, 06:27:04 PM »
You play the role of Ravana in a play and say "i am not Ravana".
Where is the problem ?:)

To whom you are having to say "I am not Ravana"?


          :) The understanding about Pramana that I presented is standard. You should do your research.

What you express does not become standard Udai :) I will also say something and say it to be standard, what about it?

Regarding Buddha being not a vedantin I know that ... why are you telling me this? what do you want from that ?

I do not have any interest, please see your response some time back given below -

Regarding Ramana's statement why dont you search out?
Anyways janaka also said it in Ashtavakra Gita.
Ramakrishna said it :) to vivekananda. He said I am Rama and Krishna ! and Buddha said it too :)

So I asked where did Buddha say so? :)

and Sri Ramakrishna told Vivekananda :) Plz refer their biography.

nope, i referred, and did not find so!

Dear Udai,

         :) you need some basics of pramana. I quote here from my topic on pramanas:

Some basic Technical Discussion: first a few definitions:
Pramana: Means of knowledge.
Prameya: The object of knowledge.
Prama: Knowledge
Pramatra: Knower.
We will discuss about pramana. When I see something and therefore know it, its called pratyaksha pramana ... it appeared before me as proof ;)

When I know about a thing, coz someone told me abt it ... that is paroksha pramana, known from someone else's explanation.

Please note that we are not discussing the validity of waht is known. we are just saying these are the ways to know.

then there is anumana pramana ... or inferential knowledge ... knowledge I gained out of inference... like : there is smoke , therefore there should be fire. meaning, the fire and smoke should always go together.

Our Scriptures are also pramanas[vedas are sabda pramana)... Means of knowledge. And what we know from them is of the following kind:

a) That which cannot be negated by other means of knowledge.
b) That which is not available through other means of knowledge alone.

This is the kind of knowledge that Scriptures present. When we expose ourselves to the scriptures ... they knock off all the wrong edges and like a sculptor sculpts a stone into a beautiful idol of Siva, the scriptures sculpt and leave us as Siva. That is why students of Vedanta are simply asked to study the scriptures and do some simple meditations to purify the mind so that they are able to see the truth expressed in scriptures. So Sravana, Hearing from a Teacher who has seen the Truth... then Manana ... Thinking about it for oneself and understanding it ... and then Nidhidhyasam ... or pure meditation on the teachings is suggested as the means to liberation.

Firstly, I do not know what source you are quoting? What credence does the above expression carries? Who has said these? If they are your expressions, how can they be vEda pramANA? Why are you expressing your anumANA pramANA to others, it is your personal thing, you have to continue with your sAdhanA with your anumAnAs.

Regarding references on janaka ... ashtavakra gita chapter 2.
regarding buddha : you can refer to buddhist scriptures as to waht he does after liberation. what does he talk to his friends.

regarding ramakrishna: you can refer net. Ramakrishna tells Vivekananda "I am Rama and Krishna" [not exact in language. he said in his local language.]

Buddha did not accept vEdAs as pramANAs at all, He neither acknowledged knowledge as well, what pramANA he could have said so? kindly substantiate.

You say, vaguely, Ramakrishna tells Vivekananda "I am Rama and Krishna" this is a classic example of anumAna Pramana, you vaguely remember some thing like this and take it as a pramANA. Here is where you need to dig deep and see what exactly Sri Ramakrishna has said so.

I did not find anything in the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna as you have claimed, now only you have to substantiate your expression. I request you to kindly do so.

General Discussion / Re: Common Discussion
« on: December 05, 2012, 05:59:42 PM »
"Explaining" , the "one who is explaining"  and the "explained to" are all three mithya.
Self neither explains nor is the teacher or student.
one who knows he is the Self is comfortable with explaining as well as remaining mute!
and he is also clear as to the difference between he who knows and he who does not know ... coz they are all mithya. vyavaharika. and mithya does not vanish upon jnana.

Then who is it that is doing all the the expressions?


General Discussion / Re: Common Discussion
« on: December 05, 2012, 05:50:45 PM »
         :) The knowledge is non-possess-able.
Awareness which is pure Presence just IS.

While explaining a point, one uses "I" and that "I" , the ego, is present as a burnt rope ... an "Objective" I. A Mirage.   

To whom are you explaining?


Regarding Ramana's statement why dont you search out?

I say with my limited reading, Bhagavan has nowhere said "I am the Self" Please prove my understanding wrong.

         :) Pramana is there ... Veda pramana is not for everything. There are various kinds of pramanas. And you should know where veda pramanas are needed. Why should something thats clearly available for logic be given through veda pramana ? is not anumana pramana enough ?

You trust Logic? you trust anumAna? How can anumAna become pramANA :D please reflect, anumAna mean fyi - "Guess, Inference"

Anyways janaka also said it in Ashtavakra Gita.
Ramakrishna said it :) to vivekananda. He said I am Rama and Krishna !
and Buddha said it too :)

Kindly provide the instances to substantiate your expression.


General Discussion / Re: Common Discussion
« on: December 05, 2012, 05:39:25 PM »
Dear Udai,

I just want to convey again as a good friend, i do not have absolutely anything person against you. my persistence in debating with you is to only bring to your awareness the dangers of traps of knowledge. I do not deny you do come up with good pointers of truth, but it is evident that you are caught up rather strongly in possessing knowledge, if you can only give up the sprouting owner in your, it will be sweet and nice, more than to anybody else to your own good self. :)

Once Paul Brunton asked Bhagavan Ramana:

"To attain enlghtenment, should I give up all possessions?" 
Bh:  "Give up the possessor too!"

There will be an ocean of paradigm shift if you present your expressions as such a one. Why all these speeches in trying to enlighten everybody else? Why engage in illusive speeches of pointers to others? when Others themselves are illusions ultimately?

Just request you to introspect for your own self :) in the millions of other pointers, i hope you may consider this for your own good :)

Best wishes and prayers,


If you do not need vEda pramANA, then, what is the point in communicating? for what purpose? you openly declare your expression stand on your own authority. You position yourself above the vEda pramANA. I do not have anything more to convey.

:) I am the Self, Ramana said ... the moment he said that he should have become unrealized, isnt it ?

btw, can you please share the quotation where Bhagavan has said "I am Self" i am not aware, hence I am asking.


second... to say " i have realized" is not a contradiction. the statement is at relative , vyavaharika level and the liberation is Paramarthika. so a statement connecting the two is only for vyavaharika purpose. so that cannot be a valid argument.

Which Sage says so? vEda pramANA please?

“I long for bhakti. I want more of this longing. Even realisation does
not matter for me. Let me be strong in my longing.”

M.: If the longing is there, Realisation will be forced on you even if
you do not want it. Subhechcha is the doorway for realisation.


Pages: 1 ... 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 [136] 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 ... 342