Vivekananda’s Vedanta

[Dilip]

Apropos the recent discussion on Swami Vivekananda. Coincidentally Swami Sarvapriyanandaji gave a talk on what Vivekananda stood for - Neo Advaita or traditional Advaita ? Here is a brilliant analysis on his position which many people fail to understand. Ramabachan and his ilk would do well to hear patiently to understand Vivekananda patiently. This is one of the most profound talks of Sarvapriyanandaji. - something not to be missed. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw6mZ-0gVes&t=170s

Sent from my iPhone

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Dear Dilip-ji,

 

I think you are missing the point (if you are referring to my own comments). There is no question but that Swami V was a towering influence for the good, not only in bringing Advaita to the attention of many in the West but in his indication of the value of all religions in taking us to the one goal. Swami Sarvapriyananda brings this out beautifully in his talk. If you follow someone such as Swami S, you will not go far wrong.

 

BUT… if you want to discover the original teaching of Advaita according to Shankara, and you want to avoid being confused by apparent contradictions, then you should not refer to Vivekananda as source material. I hope this resolves any confusion that might have resulted from what I said! 😉

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/91FA35EC-E739-486F-83EE-4F5E9F7355F2%40gmail.com.

[Dilip Dhopavkar]

Dear Dennisji,

Thank you for your response. There is no denying that SV was a towering influence. That was not my point at all. My point was  with respect to the following wrong beliefs about him.

1. He did not respect the scriptures. On this loads of evidence to counter this assertion can be given.

2. He did not accept the ascendency of the Jnana in relation to karma, worship and Yoga. This is precisely the point, brilliantly analysed by Swami Sarvapriyananda. The way all the four paths were  harmonised by Swamiji is stunning. 

3. Finally, ( this is my point of view), Ramakrishna repeatedly asserted that there is no difference between pure devotion and pure knowledge. I think mind places a wedge between devotion and jnana and also creates a hierarchy between the two. 

4. We must be open to the possibility of a restatement of the Advaita in different time periods, the core truth remaining the same all the time. There is no doubting the authority of Adi Shankaracharya and his original works, however, the alternative views of a person ( SV)who had studied the scriptures including Shankaracharya’s works, also must be given a chance. The difference in the interpretation of karma as envisaged by SV and by Shankaracharya is clear in their respective commentaries on Ishavasyopanishada. 

Finally, I am grateful to you for the objections you raised. It resulted into my revising some parts of the complete works of Swami Vivekananda.

And most important - as the cliche goes- We agree to disagree.

Humbly

Dilip

Sent from my iPad

On 21-Feb-2021, at 2:49 PM, dwa...@advaita.org.uk wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/001201d70832%249c571a20%24d5054e60%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Dear Dilip-ji,

 

We do not disagree, except for point 1. I agree that times change and teachers who take account of today’s attitudes and values MAY be more useful to seekers than traditional ones. My aim in the book that I am writing is to resolve the conflicting messages that a seeker may receive from different sources by stating Shankara’s original view on a topic. And you cannot deny that Vivekananda diverged from Shankara’s teaching, irrespective of how the outcome might be judged.

 

Regarding point 1, for example:

 

““Each religion, again, lays claim that its particular book is the only authentic word of God; that all other sacred books are false and are impositions upon poor human credulity; and that to follow another religion is to be ignorant and spiritually blind.

 

“For instance, the orthodox followers of the Vedas claim that the Vedas are the only authentic word of God in the world; that God has spoken to the world only through the Vedas; not only that, but that the world itself exists by virtue of the Vedas… A cow exists because the name cow is in the Vedas… The language of the Vedas is the original language of God, all other languages are merely dialects and not of God. Every word and syllable in the Vedas must be pronounced correctly, each sound must be given its true vibration, and every departure from this rigid exactness is a terrible sin and unpardonable.” (Collected Works, Vol. 6)

Basically, he did not accept shruti as the only pramANa for Advaita, believing one had to do something else after gaining knowledge:

 

“We can read all the Vedas, and yet will not realize anything, but when we practice their teachings, then we attain to that state which realizes what the scriptures say, which penetrates where neither reason nor perception nor inference can go, and where the testimony of others cannot avail.” (Collected Works, Vol. 1)

 

This is contradicted by Shankara (as are points 2 and 3). It would be interesting to know what Shankara might have thought about point 4. I haven’t come across SV’s commentary on IshopaniShad; I thought the only scripture he had commented on was Patanjali’s Yoga Sutra.

 

He also said this of Krishna, in the Gita:

“A great many stories are told of him, but I do not believe them. I doubt very much that he ever lived and think it would be a good thing if he never did. There would have been one less god in the world.” (Collected Works, Volume 9)

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/DDDCAAF9-2EAE-4BE9-A1D4-650841630F9F%40gmail.com.

[Srini Nagul]

Hari OM!

Just sharing couple thoughts on this topic.

There are no separate Vedanta's like Vivekananda's Vedanta, Shankara's Vedanta etc., 

Vedanta is one and masters explain in many ways. Much like saying "Science" is one. 

There are no separate sciences like Indian Science, American Science etc., 

If we find differences in the standpoints or explanations, it tells more about the expositions catered
to help the targeted audience and their times, to facilitate understanding of the import, and 

not an indication of differences in the Truth itself.

Mere name of Vivekananda has been conjuring up immense inspiration to countless souls even after 

118 years of his passing away-and continues inspire for many generations to come to walk the spiritual path.

Words cannot reach Truth, but we have only words to even say that- what a paradox!

Even so, sharing following words of Swami Chinmayananda that touched me and I found helpful:

=========================================================================

[Source: Swami Chinmayananda's "Chintan Dainandini- Read Daily, Live Fully"

The path by which you can realize the Truth is not merely dry intellectualism. If dry intellectualism

could realize Truth then all philosophy professors would be already realized. Like Shakespeare critics,

they know more of Shankara than Shankara himself!

Your intellectualism must be sweetened with devotion and reverence; your heartfelt emotions must be

reinforced with knowledge. The head and the heart must be merged together.

Contemplation is not an intellectual comprehension or an emotional appreciation. It rests on the two,
like the two wings of a bird.

Your words will have no effect unless you are able to live it.

========================================================================

If words of Vivekananda, Ramana, Shankara, Patanjali, Krishna etc., are still touching people, needless to add that
is evident enough they all actually lived them. 

Hari OM

-Srinivas

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Dear Srinivas-ji,

 

I think that you are still missing the point of my comments.

 

If different teachers say that Knowledge is/is not enough for liberation; that one has to do something/does not have to do anything; that one has to go into samAdhi and ‘see’ Brahman; that the world literally disappears when you gain enlightenment; that you have to become a renunciate before and/or after gaining enlightenment; that there is/is not such a thing as jIvanmukti; that there is/is not such a thing as ‘primal ignorance’, etc. etc. – then what is one supposed to do? My solution is to find out what Shankara said and go with that by preference.

 

Your science analogy is not appropriate. Reality is not amenable to objective description. Also, ‘appropriate to the time’ is not the case for many of these confusions. You could not ‘merge with Brahman’ in Shankara’s time and you cannot ‘merge with Brahman’ now either.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/527298885.1092255.1614004460950%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Srini Nagul]

Hari Om Dennis-ji

You may be right. I admire your erudition on many topics. I responded only to the title "Vivekananda's vedanta" and not to any post from you or others.

I read selectively,  so do not know the context of "merge with Brahman". 

Even so, I agree that "merging with Brahman" is not possible. It seems similar to saying we "go to sleep", 

fully knowing there is no "going" anywhere from the bed, but use the words to express it as  "going to sleep"!

No one thinks any one that uses the phrase "going to sleep" as not aware of the fact that there is really no "going" anywhere in sleep!

Words seem so inadequate, and Shankara himself warns from getting entangled in words which is like losing way in 

forest of words "Sabdajalam mahaaranyam".  

Again, I only responded to the title that looked odd to me, and have no comments about any post. Used it as an opportunity to share

few words that I found helpful.

Best regards and Hari OM

-Srinivas

[Indian Rediff]

Dilipji,

Thank you so much - koti koti pranams to you - for having posted this video. It is mind blowing in the answers it has provided me for many questions that I've had within - especially the expounding of Swami V on ethics. I was left spellbound! Thank you once again for posting.

I was able to download the article on ethics that was mentionedand am attaching it to this posting.

Sai

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/91FA35EC-E739-486F-83EE-4F5E9F7355F2%40gmail.com.

[Dilip]

Sai-ji,

Many thanks for the article on ethics according to Swami Vivekananda. The author brings out the essence quite well.

Swami Sarvapriyanandaji indeed makes things easier and always gives great insights.

Best Regards

Dilip Dhopavkar 

Sent from my iPhone

On 24-Feb-2021, at 05:10, Indian Rediff <indian...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAHqYaCq3CraBcSG2OkSvAN91hsJH6qSqG98OebsqbNPkR1Cg-g%40mail.gmail.com.

<Morality_and_Ethics_according_to_Swami_V_By_SwamiBhajanananda.pdf>

[Dilip]

Dear Shri Dennis-ji,

Many thanks for bringing out the contradictions in Swami Vivekananda’s teachings. Just as you have quoted a passage to buttress the view that Vivekananda had no respect for the Shruti, it is possible to quote the passages from his complete works which show that he respected and followed the Shruti. 

How to account for such a contradiction , such an inconsistency?

This brings out some serious issues in our understanding itself. I have read his Jnanayoga many times, but I didn’t find the apparent  contradiction so serious, because his overall mission was to awaken the individuals and his teachings must have varied according to the tastes/ mindset of the people he was addressing. 

I have heard from the elders that Shankaracharya’s mission was to establish the Sanatan Dharma, for which it was essential to establish the canonical texts.

Or May be we are too rigid in holding the yardstick of consistency as a standard, which may not apply in the case of the enlightened persons. They are ever free and not bound by the rules of consistency.

All the above is a sort of discursive thinking. One thing is certain that it has given me some issues for contemplation. This calls for

some  research and may be a long essay.

Best Regards

Dilip

Sent from my iPhone

On 24-Feb-2021, at 08:50, Dilip <dilip.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sai-ji,

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Dilipji and Dear Dennisji,

Swami Vivekananda had great reverence to shruti and there is absolutely no doubt about it. Like Adi Shankara, despite being advaitin,  wrote  the Bhajagovindam a book of devotion to Lord Vishmu, Shri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa was also a very liberal Advaitin, but essentially there was no compromise in the tenets of Advaita.

Towards the end, it may appear to some, from the talk of Swami Sarvapriyanandaji, that SWami Vivekanandaji believed in Jnana-karna -samuccaya, but it is really not so. Towards the end Swami Sarvapriyananandaji made his talk general and he did not  emphatically differentiate between the Jnana and Jnana-karma samuccaya, but let us not make any mistake by jumping to quick conclusions.

 ,

Swami Vivekananda was a great admirer of Lord Buddha, like yours truly here, and it appears to me that some discussions on Buddhism should have been included, Like we advaitins believe in "Brahma satyam jaganmithya", Lord Buddha also taught his Mahayana followers about the anatma-ness of the vyavaharika world.

Jai Shri Krishna

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/FF820F05-B7FD-4B03-8935-EB9413BA8CA3%40gmail.com.

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Dilip ji

Swami Vivekananda was only paraphrasing the wellknown verse where the Katha Upanishad (2.9) declares, naisha tarkena matir apaneya. It cannot be realized with the senses (pratyaxa), anumana, upamAna and Apta vakya.

It is incorrect to say he did not respect the Vedas.

His respect for the shruti is evidenced by his high praise for the Upanishads in various places and also his introduction of teaching vedantic scriptures to brahmacharis and sannyasis in the monastic training center he founded in Belur Math. That shows his priorities quite clearly.  His lectures on jnana yoga can be read for oneself to note his respect for the upanishads.

 Jnana Yoga (Swami Vivekananda book) : Swami Vivekananda : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Jnana Yoga (Swami Vivekananda book) : Swami Vivekananda : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Jnana Yoga of Swami Vivekananda The book was based on a series of lectures on the topic delivered mainly in New York and London by Swami Vivekananda. These...

You can also see a refutation of  the ideas of Anantanand Rambachan that Swami Vivekananda fashioned a neo-vedanta here

  https://rajivmalhotra.com/books/indras-net/

Besides, Swami Vivekananda *did not write formal treatises* on vedanta, afaik. He was a great conversationalist too. So its an incorrect approach to over-analyze his words from informal *speeches*, designed to inspire people, to draw hasty conclusions about what is actually going on in Swami Vivekananda's mind.

 For example, seeing the physically weak and rather tamasic disposition of a few Indian youngsters who approached him in c.1900, he said, "you will be closer to God by playing a game of football than by studying the Bhagavad-Gita". Now such statements can be easily misconstrued by taking them out of context to write Ph.D theses that Vivekananda disrespected the Gita. 

The kind of beautiful coherence and internal consistency and very appropriate emphasis on the shruti as a pramANa in the works of a Swami Dayananda Saraswati (which Dennis ji rightly mentioned and I agree with him that a steady structured study of vedanta under a Guru is irreplaceable), may not be found in the *diverse speeches* of Swami Vivekananda to diverse audiences - but it can be argued that that is not a proper comparison in the first place - to compare speeches given to lay american audiences in 1900 with the structured vedanta classroom teaching of a Swami Dayananda ji in 2000. And the claim that Swami Vivekananda's emphasis on traditional yogaabhyaasa is because of christian influences is farfetched. A modern student of advaita who has done shravaNam under a Guru, can very well use yoga based methods to good cognitive effect as explained in traditional vedantic works like the 15th century text, jIvanuktiviveka. Besides, the use of words like anubhavam and samadhi and sAxAtkAra are *not* neo-vedanta.  They are mainstream vedanta and can very well be employed without detriment to the tenet of GYAnam being the unassisted cause of liberation. 

As an 'insider' to both the Ramakrishna Vivekananda tradition and also to Pujya Swami Dayananda ji's perspicuous modern teaching tradition of advaita vedanta,  in my mind at least, based on a holistic contextual appreciation,  Swami Vivekananda is as traditionally vedantic as a Vivekachudamani author and others who have had to deal with middling aspirants. These modern Hindu Acharyas including Swamis Vivekananda, Chinmayananda, Swami Sivananda (DLS), etc., have tended to use the word "experience" for the brahmAkAra vRtti GYAnam when it arises without pratibandhakas.  And this vRtti has been emphasized by them as the avidyA-remover. So the practice of negating nAma rUpa world-perception through contemplative practices had importance for these acharyas since it *greatly facilitated* the arising of the brahmAkAra-vRtti. Many traditional. texts endorse such an approach too. Now, there is room for debate *within the advaita tradition* whether such an yogaabhyaasa based vedantic approach is orthodox enough or is it too innovative, and does it or does it not overly dilute the GYAna primacy. Albeit such an approach like in vivekachudamani emphasizing the importance of nirvikalpaka samadhi may well be due to most adhikAris being without sufficient accomplishment in upaasanam/meditation etc. But that does not mean Vivekachudamani is not traditional vedanta. Traditionally the shravaNam pradhaana approach of Padmapadacharya etc., emphasized shruti pramANyam much more distinctly than the nidhidhyAsanam oriented approach visible ckearly in sri vachaspati mishra etc., wherein relatively more emphasis is laid on sitting practices. But both these approaches are traditional. Swami Dayananda Saraswatiji follows the former and critiques the latter. (His crisp little book "the teaching tradition of advaita vedanta" is a masterpiece. ) Such differences does not render the latter approach emphasizing nirvikalpaka samadhi abhyasa  liable to be called neo-vedanta. For instance takes these VC verses,

 "To the Sannyasin who has gone through the act of hearing, the Shruti passage, ''Calm, self-controlled'^ etc., *prescribes Samadhi*,  for his realisation of the universe as his own self" (vivekachudamani 341)

Or

"Then come hearing, reflection on that, and long, constant and *unbroken meditation*, for the Muni. *After that* the learned one attains the supreme Nirvikalpa state and realises the bliss of Nirvana even in this life - VC 70"

Swami Vivekananda, it could be argued, is not saying anything more "divergent" in his endorsement of samadhi practices than what VC is saying.

The Sringeri Math endorses VC as authentic vedanta. Before long, the western university indologist cabal may insinuate that the Sringeri Math has diverged from Adi Shankara vedanta. They can use the internal "differences" between bhAmati and vivaraNa to argue their case!

Regarding Anantanand Rambachan, the issue is more complicated. He has innocently (I believe) played in to the hands of powerful western indological and also evangelical forces inimical to Dharma.

Its very unfortunate that such a nuanced debate on Vivekananda which is meaningful within a broad acceptance of advaita and dharma, is misused by Indologists and some Christian missionary forces to target Vivekananda from the shoulders of some writers like this Anantanand Rambachan who suggests that the Swami Vivekananda's yogaabhyaasa based (nirvikalpaka samadhi oriented) approach to vedanta is due to Christian influence. So if you connect the dots, the claims of some western academics is that modern articulation of sanatana dharma (nee Hinduism) is only Vivekananda's creation and it is heavily under Christian influence. They ignore traditional treatises like jivanmuktiviveka , vivekachudamani, and even the bhAmati prasthAna of vachaspati mishra who have emphasized the primacy of nidhidhyAsanam and employed modified yoga terminology within a vedantic framework. They are all traditional vedanta. 

Anantanand Rambachan, a student of Swami Dayananda ji had followed a counterproductive approach in his Phd on Vivekananda and modern Hinduism as lacking a coherent philosophical unity, It is galling to see the total absence of context in his thesis presenting/highlighting the *internal fault lines and discussions within the advaita tradition* to his Vatican interlocutors (Rambachan is on the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue at the Vatican) and other Christian apologists at the university where he works. Remember that the Vatican is brutally frank in saying that its interreliguous dialogue is only with the aim of repudiation of all Dharma and conversion to christianity.

 He has naively allowed his thesis to be misused by those who missionaries who may talk about Hinduism politely in the west, but atleast in India propagate the nonsensical idea that the Sanatana Dharma is satanic worship by 'heathens'.  An extreme example from Protestantanism is here (for illustration purposes only)...(modern Catholicism is not so gross; they are intellectually more nuanced although it makes little difference to the alarming situation on the ground in India.)

Christ village in India proud Christian/ every Indian must watch

Christ village in India proud Christian/ every Indian must watch

 The aims of these missionaries in their own words is to study other traditions like hinduism and then highlight/amplify the internal differences and fault lines within the sanatana dharma in order to absorb and digest it under the Christian umbrella. "Dialogue" is only a means to accomplish the eventual goal of conversion - not to promote understanding as an end in itself. They are quite frank about it.

Anantanand's declaration that "the revered modern Gurus  of Hinduism (read: Vivekananda, Chinmayananda etc) *need to be interrogated*",  fits in nicely with their objectives. (Its not just innocuous purva paxa, siddhantavaada arguments.) It beats me how Rambachan misses the elephant in the room viz., the need to interrogate the over blown exclusivist claims of Christian theology. Swami Dayananda ji was horrified to see the misuse of his own nuanced critique of Vivekananda, by adharmik forces. I have personally heard Swami Dayananda ji express his sense of disappointment/betrayal with his former student's (Rambachan's) critique of Vivekananda saying that it was "a slap on his (I.e., the Guru's) face". That lack of a Guru's imprimatur implies that such theses which are unable to do proper samanvaya of Vivekananda, Ramana Maharshi etc., are outside of traditional vedanta. This point was highlighted by the scholarly and traditional. vedantin Vidyashankar Sundaresan who created the Advaita-l google group who wrote that "With all due respect to Anantanand Rambachan, the difference between one who does an academic study of Śaṅkara’s works and the one who lives and breathes Advaita Vedānta is the following. The former thinks that Śaṅkara was like a university professor of philosophy and thinks that both the traditional and neo-Vedāntins have deviated from Śaṅkara” 

Context makes all the difference in vedantic dialectics. (For example, in vedanta,  there is a place for karma yoga and there is also a place for dismissal of all karma.) Such "interrogation of revered Hindu Gurus" (as Rambachan puts it), is meaningful *only*  within the broad acceptance of the framework of Dharma and Advaita, not before an audience of theologians and christian apologists who seek to destroy the vedic tradition.

Suppose someone comes along and "explains" to pastors and padres, jesuit missionaries and ecclesiastes that because there are some differences between two advaitic acharyas, so there is no single coherent advaita tradition at all. Such an articulation of differences internal to advaita, is meaningless before a Christian or Islamic critical audience, since it lacks context; nay it can be construed as disingenuous.

(On a side note - See also the current debate that 

"there is no such thing as Hinduism. There are just so many castes, sects etc. Ergo there is no such thing as Hindus being massacred in millions or their culture being misrepresented and abused; there is no such thing as Hinduphobia, because there is no such coherent thing as Hinduism, in the first place. So where is the question of Hindus *ever* being victims or having rights as a community ? Different kings fought battles and plundered the ill-gotten wealth stored in temples. There was no religious bigotry angle at all in Islamic depredations since there is no such entity like a coherent sanatana dharma " - such is the deconstructionist argument against Hinduism. And the attack on Vivekananda by Indologists who deconstruct hinduism like Ursula King and other is part of this agenda.)

Rajiv Malhotra in his book, Indra's net,  has sought (amongst many other topics), to refute the Anantanand Rambachan thesis that Vivekananda deviated from traditional vedic dharma. And suggested that many aspects of Vivekananda are an organic growth and articulation of the perennial dharma, but with a modern vocabulary. He has also been blunt in showing how Rambachan's thesis lacks meaning and context. 

Rambachan responded defending himself quite well and counter attacked Rajiv Malhotra accusing him of ad hominem arguments in his swarajya mag article.  You can read it here 

https://swarajyamag.com/culture/untangling-the-false-knots-in-rajiv-malhotras-indras-net#sdendnote29sym

And this was once again responded to by Rajiv Malhotra's student here...

http://beingdifferentforum.blogspot.com/2015/10/ragini-sharma-takes-on-rambachan.html?m=1

Om

Raghav

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/305033261.1213762.1614018462559%40mail.yahoo.com

.

[Dilip]

Namaste Raghavji,

Yours was indeed an exhaustive post which covers all the aspects of Swami Vivekananda’s teachings in addition to the personal experience. I heartily congratulate you for an excellent write up. Like you, I too have an insider experience of Ramakrishna Mission, and I was quite struck by the accusation that Vivekananda had no respect for the scriptures. He made the study of the scriptures compulsory for the monks, which fact was unknown to people like Rambachan.

Vivekananda himself has asserted several times in his works that all his teachings flow from the Shrutis.

I didn’t know anything about Rambachan. I think either he didn’t get the drift of Swamiji’s teachings or he is deliberately twisting and presenting only a distorted view to show his scholarship. 

Many thanks for your detailed write up once again.

Best Regards

Dilip

Sent from my iPhone

On 24-Feb-2021, at 16:21, 'Raghav Kumar' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1325545722.1535427.1614163901740%40mail.yahoo.com.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Hi Dilip-ji,

 

Just to point out that it is not very fair to judge Rambachan if you have not read any of his work. The book in question is ‘The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas’, University of Hawaii Press, 1994. ISBN 0-8248-1542-4. My own view is that it is very well written, very well researched and an honest and fair assessment. All of his comments are supported by quotations from Vivekananda and he takes into account V’s background and the various aspects that influenced his attitudes. There are many references regarding lack of ‘respect for scriptures’. What is your reference for his making scriptural study compulsory?

 

I have to say that I now have an implicit tendency to distrust secondary sources when they state that ‘The view of X was such and such’. In order to have confidence in what is reported, I always want to go the actual source and verify that this is so. If the topic is one upon which differing views are possible, this may even entail analyzing the Sanskrit. I have come across several examples where a respected author has translated a scriptural reference rather ‘loosely’ so as to support their own misunderstanding!

 

Best wishes,

Dennis  

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Dilip

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/FEB19341-43E2-4D4F-B55D-8DD434ACB207%40gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Raghav-ji and others,

 

 And the claim that Swami Vivekananda's emphasis on traditional yogaabhyaasa is because of christian influences is farfetched. A modern student of advaita who has done shravaNam under a Guru, can very well use yoga based methods to good cognitive effect as explained in traditional vedantic works like the 15th century text, jIvanuktiviveka. Besides, the use of words like anubhavam and samadhi and sAxAtkAra are *not* neo-vedanta.  They are mainstream vedanta and can very well be employed without detriment to the tenet of GYAnam being the unassisted cause of liberation. 

... Swami Vivekananda is as traditionally vedantic as a Vivekachudamani author and others who have had to deal with middling aspirants. These modern Hindu Acharyas including Swamis Vivekananda, Chinmayananda, Swami Sivananda (DLS), etc., have tended to use the word "experience" for the brahmAkAra vRtti GYAnam when it arises without pratibandhakas.  And this vRtti has been emphasized by them as the avidyA-remover. So the practice of negating nAma rUpa world-perception through contemplative practices had importance for these acharyas since it *greatly facilitated* the arising of the brahmAkAra-vRtti. Many traditional. texts endorse such an approach too. Now, there is room for debate *within the advaita tradition* whether such an yogaabhyaasa based vedantic approach is orthodox enough or is it too innovative, and does it or does it not overly dilute the GYAna primacy. Albeit such an approach like in vivekachudamani emphasizing the importance of nirvikalpaka samadhi may well be due to most adhikAris being without sufficient accomplishment in upaasanam/meditation etc. But that does not mean Vivekachudamani is not traditional vedanta.

In support of above, people unfamiliar with the biography of the previous Sringeri Acharya can download the book here: https://www.sringeri.net/2017/11/17/affiliate-news/vidyatheertha-foundation/free-download-book-multifaceted-jivanmukta.htm

In particular Chapters 7 - 11. Pg 118 onwards on his savikalpa samadhi and 161 onwards on nirvikalpa samadhi. It is a secondary account but the matha has sanctioned the publication.

Swami Vivekananda, it could be argued, is not saying anything more "divergent" in his endorsement of samadhi practices than what VC is saying.

The Sringeri Math endorses VC as authentic vedanta. Before long, the western university indologist cabal may insinuate that the Sringeri Math has diverged from Adi Shankara vedanta. They can use the internal "differences" between bhAmati and vivaraNa to argue their case!

thollmelukaalkizhu